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

MetroMan said:
The federal government is about to order an extension of runways Canada-wide that will affect Billy Bishop. About 100m needs to be added to the runway, extending it well into the lake. It's not related to the Porter request which is asking for 336m to 400m be added to accommodate jets. One Councillor reached for comment tonight told me that if this mandate comes from the Feds, City Council would still need to vote because the extension would have an environmental effect on Toronto Harbour. He would vote to close the airport.
Click to expand...

I don't know which councilor you spoke to but if it is a downtown councilor then he was planning to vote against the extension anyway (Vaughan, Layton and Perks are all opposed to extending the runway to allow jets).

Porter has all along factored in this safety requirement so this new development does not have any negative impact on Porter's proposal:

When Porter Airlines CEO Robert Deluce announced plans in April to fly the new CS100 jet from Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport, he noted that the emergency safety runoff area might be coming, and included it in his initial 168-metre extension at each end.
In September, Deluce put forward a second proposal calling for a 200-metre extension at each end, though he said Porter didn’t favour one length over another.
Click to expand...
http://www.thestar.com/business/2013/10/21/port_authority_warns_island_runway_extension_looms.html

I suspect that you were talking to Adam Vaughan because "voting to close the airport down" is the kind of idiotic thing that he would say (of course by "shutting down" he means commercial operations - not the noisy little general aviation aircraft which he fully supports).

I also doubt that any extension ordered by Transport Canada would require the approval of Toronto City Council. The Feds would assert their authority over the city which is what I suspect will happen if the city rejects the Porter proposal. There is too much at stake for Canada for this airport expansion not to go ahead.
 
MetroMan said:
We're in for another big fight I think. Ford with his pro-business motto will support the extension and won't care about "the downtown people" disturbed by the noise (even though they're the ones who use the airport) or pinko environmentalists concerned about the effect on the lake and its wildlife. The logical side of City Council will make the rational point that we're about to get a train to Pearson so we don't need a downtown airport and this is an opportunity to turn Centre Island into Toronto's own Central Park, accessible from the edge of the revitalized Queens Quay waterfront. Porter will sue everybody who gets in their way because they just made a bad bet by building a tunnel that may never get finished now.
Click to expand...

Even with this Council, I do not think there would be more than one or two on Council stupid enough to want to close the island airport.

If it does happen, then I can just imagine more condos being built.:D

When they posted the route for the recent Waterfront Marathon, I thought how nice it would have been to have it do a lap of the island - but by not building the bridge, they have greatly harmed the ability to showcase the city. I wonder if the marathon could still exist with an elevator ride down to the tunnel and a short moving sidewalk portion.
 
MetroMan said:
While I don't think it's anywhere near the time to bid the airport goodbye just yet, if the Feds mandate the 100m runway addition in order to continue operating and if the City doesn't grant the extension, then that's the end of the airport.

I like the convenience of Porter and I like the brand but I don't hide that I'd love to see Centre Island become an extension of the Waterfront Revitalization. Imagine a West8/DTAH designed wooden WaveBridge, perhaps a draw bridge or a dramatic vertical swoop to allow sailboats below. Now imagine an urban park bigger than New York's Central Park accessible by foot. You need the spot where the airport now sits for that vision to happen. So I am somewhat secretly hoping for Porter to move.
Click to expand...

Either you are not clear on what the word secretly means or you are the world's worst secret keeper :)

MetroMan said:
Porter could continue their downtown airport brand by partnering with Union Pearson Express. Check in at Union Station, right at the very centre of the financial district -- no more shuttle bus -- and get whisked to YYZ into a Porter lounge where you'll clear security, your check in baggage already having been taken off your hands at Union station and loaded on to your flight. That's convenience and that's really downtown and Porter can start offering business travelers flights to London, Hong Kong, and Dubai.
Click to expand...

It may be convenience and it may be downtown but it will not be unique....it will be a service level that is available to every airline......airlines already set up and geared up to fly to the world via the their fleet composition. Porter can't get to Dubai with their current or planned fleet.

Make no mistake.....closing down the island airport is closing down Porter and I doubt they would go quietly.
 
I should have said "was somewhat secretly" :rolleyes:

As for the Federal government's jurisdiction, they can impose a requirement for the airport to have a certain length landing strip in order to operate but they cannot force the City to accept building over the lake. This is particularly sensitive because there are serious environmental issues that would require the city to modify drinking water intake infrastructure. While the Port Authority or the Feds directly could pay for this, it doesn't mean that the city has to accept it. No doubt there would be a big debate over this because not accepting the federal requirement for extending the runway would mean closing the airport.

This would not be the end of Porter. In my post above, I delineated a strategy where a Union Pearson Express partnership would not only maintain the exclusivity and downtown brand that defines Porter, it would in fact strengthen it by eliminating the shuttle bus to Bathurst and putting Porter's new reception and check in at the centre of the financial district right inside Union Station. There would be a Porter check in at Union Station via the Skywalk where you'd check in to your flight and your luggage and you'd board one of the every 15 minute trains and soon arrive at YYZ into a Porter lounge from where you'd board your flight. Porter would build the Union Pearson Express fee into their prices.

The current or planned fleet can't fly to Europe or Asia but if Porter were forced to change their strategy because Billy Bishop is no longer a licensed airport, then they could plan to expand their service with jets capable of flying their clients to popular business destinations.
 
Last edited:
Porter thrives in Toronto due to location, experience and price. Move the location and the price goes up. You've lost two key differentiators. Going to Pearson is going to negatively affect experience as well.
How that isn't the end of Porter is a mystery.
 
MetroMan said:
I should have said "was somewhat secretly" :rolleyes:

As for the Federal government's jurisdiction, they can impose a requirement for the airport to have a certain length landing strip in order to operate but they cannot force the City to accept building over the lake. This is particularly sensitive because there are serious environmental issues that would require the city to modify drinking water intake infrastructure. While the Port Authority or the Feds directly could pay for this, it doesn't mean that the city has to accept it. No doubt there would be a big debate over this because not accepting the federal requirement for extending the runway would mean closing the airport.

This would not be the end of Porter. In my post above, I delineated a strategy where a Union Pearson Express partnership would not only maintain the exclusivity and downtown brand that defines Porter, it would in fact strengthen it by eliminating the shuttle bus to Bathurst and putting Porter's new reception and check in at the centre of the financial district right inside Union Station. There would be a Porter check in at Union Station via the Skywalk where you'd check in to your flight and your luggage and you'd board one of the every 15 minute trains and soon arrive at YYZ into a Porter lounge from where you'd board your flight. Porter would build the Union Pearson Express fee into their prices.
Click to expand...

How would they differentiate themselves? Surely, any airline that flies out of Porter (that has pre-existing gates there) could/would offer the same sort of services from downtown? And those airlines would not have to change their business model on a dime, would not have negotiate terminal and gate space at Pearson and would not have make massive (or any) changes to their fleet.

Porter would go from a position of comparative advantage in a fairly small niche segment of the air market to a position of great disadvantage in a very broad and competitive segment of the market.

MetroMan said:
The current or planned fleet can't fly to Europe or Asia but if Porter were forced to change their strategy because Billy Bishop is no longer a licensed airport, then they could plan to expand their service with jets capable of flying their clients to popular business destinations.
Click to expand...

By the time they got a viable transcontinental fleet up and running they would be out of business.
 
All of this seems to make the idea of moving the airport to the south practical and increasingly cost effective. Come to think of it, no one has come up with reasons why a move isn't feasible.
 
MetroMan said:
I should have said "wasThis is particularly sensitive because there are serious environmental issues that would require the city to modify drinking water intake infrastructure
Click to expand...

The intake pipes for the Island filtration plant are nowhere near the airport. They run deep into the lake. Can't imagine how this would have any bearing on the filtration plant.

This would not be the end of Porter. In my post above, I delineated a strategy where a Union Pearson Express partnership would not only maintain the exclusivity and downtown brand that defines Porter, it would in fact strengthen it by eliminating the shuttle bus to Bathurst and putting Porter's new reception and check in at the centre of the financial district right inside Union Station. There would be a Porter check in at Union Station via the Skywalk where you'd check in to your flight and your luggage and you'd board one of the every 15 minute trains and soon arrive at YYZ into a Porter lounge from where you'd board your flight. Porter would build the Union Pearson Express fee into their prices.
Click to expand...

What you are ignoring in this business-case analysis is the fact that landing fees at Pearson are much higher than at Billy Bishop. This is one of the reasons why Porter has been so successful.

Lets do the math. A CS100 caries 125 passengers and weighs about 50,000 kg.

Trans-border landing fees at YYZ: $6 / passenger + $25 / 1000 kg = $2,000

Trans-border landing fees at YTZ: $9.91 / 1000 kg = $495

Source:
YTZ: https://www.torontoport.com/Airport/For-Pilots/Landing-Fees.aspx
YYZ: http://www.torontopearson.com/uploadedFiles/B2B/Content/Business_Opportunities/Aeronautical Fees.pdf

As you can see it cost $1,500 MORE to land at Pearson compared to Billy Bishop! Given the economics of the airline business this is a huge difference! Note that these are just landing fees. There are other charges such as gate fees that are much higher at Pearson!

Now add to that the cost of getting out to Pearson. You say that Porter could "partner" with the rail link and include the cost in their prices. We don't know what the rail link prices will be but it is a safe bet that it will cost at least $25 each way. So on a full flight Porter would have to add another $3,125 to cover the cost of transporting passengers out to Pearson!

Add these two costs together and you can see that Porter would be paying a PENALTY of $4,600 PER flight* if it had to operate from Pearson! Porter would cease to exist and consumers would see a big bump in airfares. Is this what you want to see happen?

The current or planned fleet can't fly to Europe or Asia but if Porter were forced to change their strategy because Billy Bishop is no longer a licensed airport, then they could plan to expand their service with jets capable of flying their clients to popular business destinations.
Click to expand...

Actually with the CSeries Porter could probably fly to the UK (the CSeries has been purchased by an Airline that plans a service between London City and New York) but the fact is Porter doesn't need to fly to Europe and Asia in order to make a big difference on our airfares.

* based on a Bombardier CS100 with full passenger load
 
Last edited:
Actually with the CSeries Porter could probably fly to the UK (the CSeries has been purchased by an Airline that plans a service between London City and New York) but the fact is Porter doesn't need to fly to Europe and Asia in order to make a big difference on our airfares.

* based on a Bombardier CS100 with full passenger load[/QUOTE]

They could probably fly to the UK from St johns, but from Bishop they will run short 731 kms. According to the CSeries website the range of the CS100 from bishop is 5000 kms.
 
oceanbeat said:
Actually with the CSeries Porter could probably fly to the UK (the CSeries has been purchased by an Airline that plans a service between London City and New York) but the fact is Porter doesn't need to fly to Europe and Asia in order to make a big difference on our airfares.

* based on a Bombardier CS100 with full passenger load

They could probably fly to the UK from St johns, but from Bishop they will run short 731 kms. According to the CSeries website the range of the CS100 from bishop is 5000 kms.
Click to expand...

Based on the figures quoted for the standard aircraft you are correct there is not enough range. This aircraft has been sold to an airline that will be operating it on a London - New York route which is a distance of 5572 km. I suspect they are getting extra range from the fact that it will be configured as all business class. Toronto to London is only about 150 km further (5720 km) . Based on these figures I expect a Toronto / London route could be feasible with an all business class layout.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top