TOareaFan
Superstar
wife is old fashioned and likes to read the paper in its original form....so online access comes with subscription.
Toronto Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport | ?m | ?s | Ports Toronto | Arup
wife is old fashioned and likes to read the paper in its original form....so online access comes with subscription.
My husband too.
Not everyone knows how to use incognito mode, and every time someone posts a link, someone else says they can't read it and asks for the article to be posted
Not everyone knows how to use incognito mode, and every time someone posts a link, someone else says they can't read it and asks for the article to be posted
Dan416
Senior Member
I'm happy with Stintz changing her position in both cases. I don't consider it flip-flopping. Flip-flopping would be coming back and saying she's back to supporting LRT and no jets.
TOareaFan
Superstar
flip flopping is a very modern political term and I am really not sure I understand it. People seem to dislike politicians who have opposing opinions to theirs and spend a lot of time espousing their own opinions in debates discussions. If a politicians exhibits any flexibility in their position they are labled wishy-washy and, god forbid, if they actually see the value/merit in the opinions of others and change their own stance they are accused of flip-flopping.
It's almost as if we really value the dogmatic two party, polar opposite, type of politics that has ground America's congress to a halt so often and anyone showing flexibility is ridiculed/dismissed.
Grimace
Active Member
So she is just flipping. She hasn't flopped yet.
RC8
Senior Member
Right. So railing against LRTs in Scarborough, then endorsing LRTs in Scarborough, and then railing against LRTs in Scarborough is not flip-flopping. Sure.
GenerationW
Senior Member
Stintz was always for a B-D extension, but she had to revive the previously approved 2010 plan (which included an LRT to replace the SRT) to garner enough votes so that the transit file could be taken away from Ford. Once that was accomplished, she almost immediately started lobbying for the subway along with Glen de Bearemaker.
She still supports the Sheppard LRT.
JayBeeGooner
Active Member
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
Reading through that posting...the biggest "difference" between the writer and the responder seems to be what the curfew covers. The writer included a bunch of flights that had wheels down at 10:58-11 but arrived at the terminal after 11.....the writer makes the point that "noise is noise" and it should not matter if it is noise taxing or landing....but, I bet, contractually there is a difference and the agreement probably defines a landing in relation to the wheels touching the runway.
It seems there is a fair amount of those planes that touchdown right at or near 11....that is probably no accident either.....I bet you Porter designs its daily schedule working back from that 11 pm curfew and attempts to maximize its fleet use knowing the last planes landing at YTZ have to be on the ground by 11. So when you eliminate that disagreement between what defines a landing (and, I doubt the TPA would be able to adopt a wheels down definition if the triparty agreement used an "at the terminal" definition) then you are left with the 2 flights that Porter was fined for and a bunch that while they did start off headed for YTZ and did land after 11....they were diverted to other airports (YYZ and YHM) so they are not issues (unless the suspicion is that TPA is lying about where they landed
I get that you are not making a big deal over this and it does not surprise me that those who are watching it very closely are likely erring on the side of the coin they favour. Looking at their own stats for December, though, it really does look like there were two flights outside the rules and Porter was fined for both of them.
But noise is noise!!! Anyone who has used sites like flightstats soon realize that they can be notoriously inaccurate +/- a few minutes. As much as they provide times to the minute they can be off due to simply the reporting mechanism. So I would suggest, as you have, that those landings that occurred in and around the timeframe of 11-11:10 has a bit of a buffer in terms of violations.
mrxbombastic
Active Member
My biggest tissue is how she changes her opinion. Its insincere to voter to say oops sorry I didn't mean what I said. Saying you change you opinion of cause of new facts or read reports I acceptable to me. I don't have to agree With the politicians view point but its more sincere than what stintz did.
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
Who is paying for this runway extension? Does any of the bill wind its way back to Porter?
Also, does Porter really expect that flying to destinations like Vancouver and LAX are worth going into substantial debt and fundamentally changing a tried and true business model? I mean, Porter does what it does well because it has a niche: business people and high end civil servants who work in downtown Toronto who need to fly to short haul, underserved or lucrative destinations: Sault Ste. Marie, New York, Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec City.
Once you cross the 3.5 hour flight threshold, the benefit of flying out of a downtown airport instead of Pearson starts to shrink. It will shrink even further once the UPX opens. It probably disappears completely when you realize that Pearson has border preclearance, and YTZ does not.
This is a bit anecdotal, but I fly YVR to Toronto fairly regularly, and I will not consider Porter in the future. They won't compete on price, and their emphasis on luxury only goes so far when you are crammed into a regional jet. I find regional jets to be claustrophobic beyond 2 hour flights, and I'm not even a particularly tall guy.
Also, does Porter really expect that flying to destinations like Vancouver and LAX are worth going into substantial debt and fundamentally changing a tried and true business model? I mean, Porter does what it does well because it has a niche: business people and high end civil servants who work in downtown Toronto who need to fly to short haul, underserved or lucrative destinations: Sault Ste. Marie, New York, Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec City.
Once you cross the 3.5 hour flight threshold, the benefit of flying out of a downtown airport instead of Pearson starts to shrink. It will shrink even further once the UPX opens. It probably disappears completely when you realize that Pearson has border preclearance, and YTZ does not.
This is a bit anecdotal, but I fly YVR to Toronto fairly regularly, and I will not consider Porter in the future. They won't compete on price, and their emphasis on luxury only goes so far when you are crammed into a regional jet. I find regional jets to be claustrophobic beyond 2 hour flights, and I'm not even a particularly tall guy.
ShonTron
Moderator
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 12,462
- Reaction score
- 9,251
- Location
- Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
I agree with everything you say, and this is a big part of my reasoning against the Island Airport expansion. Porter does what it does well - and their competition with AC Jazz/Express is big reason why I was able to justify going Sault Ste. Marie early last month. (I've also flown to Timmins, Dulles, Ottawa, Midway, and Newark on Porter.)
Porter does offer a bit more legroom - but that's necessary due to the limited amount of weight the Q400s can handle flying into and out of YTZ. With the longer runway, will it even offer that now that it can increase the aircraft payload? Even with increased legroom, I find the Q400s cramped.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
the expansion will be paid for through airport fees.
as for competitiveness, i think you would be amazed how far people are willing to go to avoid the cattle herding that is pearson.
as for competitiveness, i think you would be amazed how far people are willing to go to avoid the cattle herding that is pearson.
geojesse
New Member
With all due respect, how this will affect Porter's bottom line and their business model is not (and should not be) a criteria the city uses when evaluating this file. The idea that the city should say no because it might change the amount of legroom in the plane is just silly. The market will determine if passengers are willing to fly long distances in a C-series.
TOareaFan
Superstar
Interesting stuff....I think I recall that the runway expansion has the same funding model as the pedstrian tunnel...that is, fronted by TPA and recovered from an airport improvement fee on passenger tickets.
As for distance of travel......it is not clear to me that the CS100 is, by strict definition, a "regional jet"....I get the impression it is a bit bigger/roomier than, say, a challenger but that may be not by much. This past weekend I flew AC YYZ-SEA in an Embraer 190...I am 6'2 and, likely a bit wider than I should be. I expected a sardine like feel....actually from a seating and comfort point of view I was pleasantly surprised....what really felt "two small" were the less private spaces.....as an example, for a flight that long it really is not sufficient to have one bathroom. On shorter flights not everyone "has to go" but on a >5 hour journey you can be certain everyone will, at least once....so sitting in the 2nd last row (with the last row reserved for crew) I never felt any privacy as there was a constant line of people 4-6 people long reserving their time in the washroom.
I think some of those things are overlooked as we continue to stretch the range of some of these smaller planes......in the long run, there may be a customer bias to a larger plane from a larger airport.
I have never really seen a true value in pre-clearance of US customs.....at some point in your journey you are going to have to line up to clear customs......whether it's in Toronto or Seattle....it does not make much of a difference. (IMO)