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

[PinkLucy]

While there is obviously better international connectivity at Pearson, there is some connectivity at Toronto Island. You can connect to international flights through Montreal via Air Canada or Porter, and via Porter through Newark, Boston and Chicago. All of these airports have connections to numerous destinations.

Many travel websites will generate multiple-airline tickets that can get you to Toronto Island, even if you are starting at a non-Porter airport.

When I was flying out of Porter last week, someone behind me in line commented on the signs directing people to US flights -- he was surprised that you could fly out of Canada via the island airport.

 

[ShonTron]

Chicago Midway is shat for international flights with most connections requiring you to get on a bus to O'Hare.

If that passes for acceptable, we should just run a YTZ to YYZ shuttle bus and marvel at the international capabilities of YTZ, or Union Station in 2015.

Newark is the only one on that list that is useful. Logan has too many delays and rescheduling limitations to be particularly useful, particularly since Porter doesn't code-share so cancellations will mean staying the night on your own dime.

To be fair though, IAD (Washington Dulles) has a lot of international flights too, though Newark is the best. But I wouldn't want to fly overseas via the US, preferring YYZ direct or connecting through Europe.

I was surprised to see regular flights from MDW to Mexico City and other Mexican cities, but Volaris is the only other international airline that flies from Midway - the only other non-US flights are AirTran's sun destination flights.

 

[rbt]

To be fair though, IAD (Washington Dulles) has a lot of international flights too, though Newark is the best.

Washington is actually pretty limited. Between Porter having 3 trips per day heading there and many of the Washington routes having a single trip per day, you're odds of being stranded in the winter are high and at a minimum you will have a 4 hour connection time.

Again, Porter doesn't have many partners so when something goes wrong, like bad weather, you are on your own at the connection point.

More specifically, United Airlines is a very good friend of Air Canada and absolutely will not be co-operative if you flew Porter to avoid Air Canada and Porter gets weather delayed at YTZ. A dozen Porter flights to Newark makes it a lower risk option for a United Airlines international connection; though I still wouldn't try it in winter unless you have status with United.


Frankfurt is the only real destination from Washington that would be worth considering. For London/Paris you're far better off going via Montreal.

 

[kEiThZ]

I doubt it. Cargo = zero, international connectivity = poor to non-existent, pay = below mainline, etc. Great service and easy access to downtown only create new economic opportunities for the city if you believe that some business would not have located in Toronto without it, or new money was spent in the city. If someone holds a convention in Toronto most visitors would have no ability to fly Porter even if they wanted to, so how can it have such an impact that a business is going to choose not to locate in Toronto because of it?

1) You have a poor understanding of the wider economic impact of infrastructure.

2) Thank the stars that Porter is not paying AC wages or they wouldn't be in business very long. There's already doubts about AC's viability again. And AC's new gameplan is to create a completely new carrier (Air Canada Rouge) as a vehicle to gut wages. Were I a prospective airline employee I'd feel safer at a stable employer like Porter than the carrier that is looking to actually sink the mainline with a trojan horse just so they can gut my paycheque.

3) Since when does cargo or international connectivity determine the success of any airport or airline? Porter can be a great (and profitable) regional airline largely restricting its business to Toronto origin-destination passengers just as it's doing now.

 

[kEiThZ]

I found this article interesting:

Bombardier appears to name Odyssey Airlines as CSeries customer

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...s-to-name-odyssey-as-cseries-customer-386570/

Odyssey Airlines is a UK startup that plans to offer all business class service between London City Airport and New York. Unlike the British Airways A319 that currently service this route - the CSeries will not have to stop in Shannon for refueling - instead flying non-stop to New York.

Since the London/Toronto route is only 90 miles longer than the London/New York route it seems to me that the CSeries could be used on non-stop service between Toronto Island and London City Airport.

If the CSeries gets the go-ahead to operate from Toronto Island I would expect to see Porter and / or Air Canada offering non-stop CYTZ/EGLC service.

Lots of rumours that the CSeries will come in better than spec. If that happens, I strongly expect Porter will launch this service. And AC won't be able to compete. They won't have the CSeries and theywon't have the slots. And Porter will eat their lunch in one of their most profitable business markets.

If they don't, I actually suspect, Odyssey itself might apply to fly to YTZ.

 

[TOareaFan]

Lots of rumours that the CSeries will come in better than spec. If that happens, I strongly expect Porter will launch this service. And AC won't be able to compete. They won't have the CSeries and theywon't have the slots. And Porter will eat their lunch in one of their most profitable business markets.

If they don't, I actually suspect, Odyssey itself might apply to fly to YTZ.

Any idea what the fares are for that proposed Odyssey all business london-NY service? My impression of the Toronto - London (all UK really) is that the sales are dominated by low cost leisure carriers and I am not sure how much money there is to be made in a low seat number, high fare service between Canada and the UK.

 

[kEiThZ]

Any idea what the fares are for that proposed Odyssey all business london-NY service? My impression of the Toronto - London (all UK really) is that the sales are dominated by low cost leisure carriers and I am not sure how much money there is to be made in a low seat number, high fare service between Canada and the UK.

Canada-UK has lots of leisure travellers. But Toronto-London also has tons of business pax. That's why AC has 4 flights a day YYZ-LHR in addition to 2 BA and 1 Transat rotations per day. Airlines don't normally go for frequency in leisure markets. The luxury of frequency is normally only reserved for those who can pay for the convenience of having multiple flight times on offer. Otherwise, the practice is to put the biggest airplane possible on the route, and fly once for the day.

Fares for London-NY will probably be at normal biz class fare levels. Their main attraction has always been the convenience of centre to centre travel. BA runs this route today using the only Concorde flight numbers and they charge higher fares than they do business class out of LHR. The operation could be very profitable even at a lower fare. Costs are lower to fly 30 pax. So profit yields can be higher.

 

[TOareaFan]

Canada-UK has lots of leisure travellers. But Toronto-London also has tons of business pax. That's why AC has 4 flights a day YYZ-LHR in addition to 2 BA and 1 Transat rotations per day. Airlines don't normally go for frequency in leisure markets. The luxury of frequency is normally only reserved for those who can pay for the convenience of having multiple flight times on offer. Otherwise, the practice is to put the biggest airplane possible on the route, and fly once for the day.

Fares for London-NY will probably be at normal biz class fare levels. Their main attraction has always been the convenience of centre to centre travel. BA runs this route today using the only Concorde flight numbers and they charge higher fares than they do business class out of LHR. The operation could be very profitable even at a lower fare. Costs are lower to fly 30 pax. So profit yields can be higher.

I hear ya....one factor, though, in the AC fequency to LHR is that they service the entire UK from there....so anyone travelling to the UK on AC goes to heathrow then connects (typically to British Midland) to their destination.....Air Transat, in addition to its daily to LHR, has a daily to Glasgow and, I believe, Manchester.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Of course parkland is typically not expected to be industrious, we could probably find a way to milk more revenues out of Algonquin Park as well. I clearly stated "pretending that all the jobs are new rather than transfers from VIA, Greyhound, and Pearson" leaving out lawn mowing at Toronto Island. Yes, I am suggesting that the largely unionized workforce of Pearson is paid higher on average than the workforce at Toronto Island. For pilots of a Q400 Porter's pay is comparable to Jazz, but most of the people moving from Pearson to Toronto Island flights would have been sitting on larger aircraft flying out of Pearson which pays more. I would expect similar jobs at VIA to also pay more for similar work but not significantly. I think losing Greyhound / MegaBus jobs to Porter probably isn't a loss in any way but it does still not count as a new job when making claims about the economic impact. My primary argument is this travelling public that Porter serves isn't all a new stimulated market, it is largely composed of people who would have being finding an alternative mode of transport so the jobs are not 100% new jobs, and of the new jobs little of that number has to do with being at Toronto Island (e.g. there would have been similar levels of new jobs with a new airline created at Pearson).

Fair enough. I have no reason to think that Porter's salaries are significantly less than AC/WJ, they are competing for the same staff and so would have to be somewhat competitive. However to suggest that the jobs that Porter provides are somehow inferior to AC/WJ just because you believe that their wages are lower than AC/WJ seems to reveal that your opinion is already coloured somewhat by how you feel about Porter to begin with.

I mean statscan doesn't differentiate between PT and FT jobs when they quote job creation numbers but somehow the jobs that Porter creates somehow must be more lucrative that AC/WJ otherwise they are unimportant...

 

[EnviroTO]

However to suggest that the jobs that Porter provides are somehow inferior to AC/WJ just because you believe that their wages are lower than AC/WJ seems to reveal that your opinion is already coloured somewhat by how you feel about Porter to begin with.

I think Porter is a great airline that provides great service and as I have already stated in this thread I believe they should be allowed to proceed with the runway extension and use of the CSeries. I know people who work there who like their job but have told me that their pay is less than their Air Canada. The whole point is that the value of Porter is being totally overstated.

I mean statscan doesn't differentiate between PT and FT jobs when they quote job creation numbers but somehow the jobs that Porter creates somehow must be more lucrative that AC/WJ otherwise they are unimportant...

New jobs are important regardless of what they are are paid, new jobs that replace others are not as important unless they pay more. Walmart also states numbers talking about all the jobs that a new downtown Walmart will create. No doubt Walmart will employ a number of people and it will be successful. Some jobs might be new, mom and pop hardware stores don't have greeters perhaps, but the current economy through a looking glass focused on Walmart doesn't matter as compared to the change of Toronto's economy over time. Despite the economic figures that Walmart publishes what matters is the reality outside the new Walmart economy. To take it to the extreme imagine Walmart being the only company, its economic value would be 100% of the economy and would obviously have some impressive numbers behind it and if it shut down all the jobs would have been lost (if it were allowed to happen). Walmart would rightly claim it is a major contributor to Toronto's economy and that would be true, but the real question is did their being there significantly adjust the value of Toronto's economy upwards or downwards as a total. Now I believe Walmart harms the local economy more than it helps and I do not believe that about Porter, but I am not going to buy into any idea that Porter is propping up our economy in any measurable way. I would expect Porter's impact to be marginally positive on the whole, more so because of the Q400s, but statements about how fortunate Toronto is to be in this enviable position are over inflated. If Air Canada goes on strike it has a significant effect on the ability for Canadians to travel and the government steps in. If FedEx and UPS were to shut down I would expect some form of intervention. When the auto sector was about to die completely in North America the governments stepped in. If Porter goes on strike people will be accommodated fairly quickly by alternate means and no government will blink an eye. People will be upset, just as they would if Apple got out of the phone business, and then go to the competitor. There will be no mass exodus from the city.

 

[EnviroTO]

Since the London/Toronto route is only 90 miles longer than the London/New York route it seems to me that the CSeries could be used on non-stop service between Toronto Island and London City Airport.

I don't think so. According to Bombardier's information for urban operations (operating from the shorter runways that Porter will operate from even with the runway extension) the range will be 1500nm which gets you to Reykjavik. That distance isn't much different from what the Q400 can do fully gassed up and loaded on a full length runway. After the runway extension the Q400 will be able to handle east coast direct without restrictions, Florida, etc.

 

[kEiThZ]

I don't think so. According to Bombardier's information for urban operations (operating from the shorter runways that Porter will operate from even with the runway extension) the range will be 1500nm which gets you to Reykjavik. That distance isn't much different from what the Q400 can do fully gassed up and loaded on a full length runway. After the runway extension the Q400 will be able to handle east coast direct without restrictions, Florida, etc.

That spec is based on a full aircraft load not carrying ~30 business pax and 3 flight attendants and a lot less baggage (though business travellers have higher allowances, most actual travel lighter owing to their short duration stays). That Urban Ops spec is just marketing fluff to be used by Bombardier promoting their product to regional carriers. The real answer to whether the aircraft can work on a route comes form looking at actual range/payload diagrams, and runway balanced field length calculations.

Finally, while a Q400 can do 1500nm, the key difference is the time taken to fly that distance. The CSeries is about 100 knots faster at cruise. In the extreme case, that translates into a 50 minute difference in flight time for a 1500nm sector. This means that in the time taken for a Q400 to fly 1500nm, the CS100 could fly that route return and throw in another return short-haul run. Utility of the aircraft will be higher. I expect that if and when the CS100 comes into service, the Q400 will be restricted to 500nm or less. The longest route I can see it being used on would be Thunder Bay. I would expect Halifax and the rest of the Maritimes to be CS100 destinations.

 

[kEiThZ]

I think Porter is a great airline that provides great service and as I have already stated in this thread I believe they should be allowed to proceed with the runway extension and use of the CSeries. I know people who work there who like their job but have told me that their pay is less than their Air Canada. The whole point is that the value of Porter is being totally overstated.



New jobs are important regardless of what they are are paid, new jobs that replace others are not as important unless they pay more. Walmart also states numbers talking about all the jobs that a new downtown Walmart will create. No doubt Walmart will employ a number of people and it will be successful. Some jobs might be new, mom and pop hardware stores don't have greeters perhaps, but the current economy through a looking glass focused on Walmart doesn't matter as compared to the change of Toronto's economy over time. Despite the economic figures that Walmart publishes what matters is the reality outside the new Walmart economy. To take it to the extreme imagine Walmart being the only company, its economic value would be 100% of the economy and would obviously have some impressive numbers behind it and if it shut down all the jobs would have been lost (if it were allowed to happen). Walmart would rightly claim it is a major contributor to Toronto's economy and that would be true, but the real question is did their being there significantly adjust the value of Toronto's economy upwards or downwards as a total. Now I believe Walmart harms the local economy more than it helps and I do not believe that about Porter, but I am not going to buy into any idea that Porter is propping up our economy in any measurable way. I would expect Porter's impact to be marginally positive on the whole, more so because of the Q400s, but statements about how fortunate Toronto is to be in this enviable position are over inflated. If Air Canada goes on strike it has a significant effect on the ability for Canadians to travel and the government steps in. If FedEx and UPS were to shut down I would expect some form of intervention. When the auto sector was about to die completely in North America the governments stepped in. If Porter goes on strike people will be accommodated fairly quickly by alternate means and no government will blink an eye. People will be upset, just as they would if Apple got out of the phone business, and then go to the competitor. There will be no mass exodus from the city.

Spoken like someone who doesn't understand the impact of competition on a given sector and the implications for the wider economy when the sector in question is essentially a utility.

This kind of logic is the same reason why we have a telco oligopoly that gives us some of the highest rates in the world. Or why Australia with 1/3rd fewer people has substantially lower airfares than us.

What is it about this country that we seem to think that we are somehow exempt from economic principles that are proven the world over? Heck, you readily ignore StatsCan's own data that shows airfares declined in the TOM triangle in contrast to the trend elsewhere in the country. And you think this is somehow neglibile for commerce?

More specifically in this case, the argument is not between two types of businesses setting up. The argument is between the level of utility we should derive from an existing piece of infrastructure (and the jobs that utility creates) and bulldozing it to create a park and the attendant quality of life benefit it entails. To use your Walmart analogy the choice is between a Walmart and no Walmart. Not between Walmart and a hedge fund building its office on the same space. Given that choice, I am quite confident, I can guess how most of the residents in this city would vote.

Personally, I would love to have a city-wide referendum on this. Settle it once and for all. With all the cards on the table. City council could easily put a referendum question on the next municipal election ballot. Allow the expansion or shut down Billy Bishop.

 

[EnviroTO]

More specifically in this case, the argument is not between two types of businesses setting up. The argument is between the level of utility we should derive from an existing piece of infrastructure (and the jobs that utility creates) and bulldozing it to create a park and the attendant quality of life benefit it entails.

I thought this was about expansion and not the existing infrastructure or option of bulldozing.

To use your Walmart analogy the choice is between a Walmart and no Walmart. Not between Walmart and a hedge fund building its office on the same space. Given that choice, I am quite confident, I can guess how most of the residents in this city would vote.

Given a choice of Walmart on a piece of land or no Walmart on a piece of land how do you thin most residents would vote?

Personally, I would love to have a city-wide referendum on this. Settle it once and for all. With all the cards on the table. City council could easily put a referendum question on the next municipal election ballot. Allow the expansion or shut down Billy Bishop.

Or allow it to remain as is with no further expansion. That option would need to be on the table because it is unpalatable to almost everyone to use tax payer dollars to buy Porter out to shut it down and Porter's negative impacts are not causing much issue as things are now.

 

[Peepers]

The CEO of WestJet was in Toronto today to accept delivery of their first Q400's and he expressed interest in flying into Toronto Island if slots open up and further stated Westjet would be interested in buying Porter (hope this never happens!). Earlier this week I was at Polson Pier and a saw the new WestJet Q400 make a bunch of low level passes over the Island Airport with a chase plane close behind taking pictures / video

photo credit : Financial Post

http://business.financialpost.com/2...island-airport-in-hint-that-it-covets-access/