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

[kEiThZ]

At this point, I don't think TIA/Porter is much of a concern. That said, it's not at all clear as to whether the business is viable given the existing infrastructure envelope, and in case it isn't, what sort of interventions will be required. I mean, do we argue that we should build a bridge/longer runway and allow jets to operate? That's very different from the initial scenario painted by the operators. Shouldn't there be some iron-clad guarantees against that - otherwise, what you have is basically a Trojan Horse.

AoD

I think their business model is very viable. Indeed, Air Canada has been scouring the markets for used Q400s to help reduces its cost. The Q400 is a game changer. When you can run flights with 40 passengers and break even while Air Canada or Westjet needs 80 pax per flight, that's a huge advantage. My money is on Air Canada or Westjet going down before Porter based on this advantage.

As for maxing out at the island. I don't think that's going to happen any time soon. The island can handle a lot more traffic. A lot of their traffic limits (on the aviation side) come not from the size of the runway but from operations and aviation infrastructure constraints such as modified patterns for noise abatement (ops), and average comms/navaids (infrastructure). Fix the last one and you can increase throughput significantly. I actually the limiting factor at some point will be channel crossing. When Porter starts running a million passengers through a year those ferries are going to get quite busy.

Last point about the jet restriction. Keep it. There are very few jets that could operate off the island because of its runway length and regional jets are on the outs anyway with higher fuel prices. There are no passenger jets that any of our regional or national airlines have in service that could operate from the island without severe load restrictions. Allowing jets into the island would largely result in more slots getting used up by business jets carrying 5-10 business executives while pissing off the neighbours from the noise. So I think it's best to keep the restriction on jets, even though it offers Porter some advantages (keeps out AC Jazz RJs and frees up slots for Porter).

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Woodbridge:

Except that TIA is under TPA - a public agency, which must be responsive to the diverse needs of the public - and whether you like it or not, the public has decided the waterfront should be in part geared towards a more recreational use. Now, that's not to say the TIA isn't a legitimate use (though questions certainly exist with regards to transparency and legitmacy of the circumstances leading to the current arrangements), but it is more than fair to engage in debates around the future direction of the waterfront and the role of the land on which TIA sit on.

AoD

Then I suggest that the poster (EnviroTO) actually contribute to the discussion rather than blather with senseless dribble that we all know will not (or at least are far out into the future) come to pass. Comments which I simply mirrored in my post to illustrate just how rediculous their suggestions were.

A380's on the island? You must be kidding! First you'd need at least a 10 000 foot runway to land the thing, add in some skid space for emergencies and your looking at 12 to 15 000 feet of straight flat land to build a runway on (unless you build a bridge of some sort out into the lake). Can you find me 15 000 feet of straight flat land on the islands? Plus the space needed for taxiways etc? I can't. Second since the A380 will be an ultral long haul high capacity aircraft you will tend to see flights coming in from Europe, the Middle East and Aisa all minimum 6 hr flights or more. The operational advantage of having an island airport nearby is virtually eliminated by this. When you've just flown 18 hrs from Beijing somehow a 40 minute airport taxi (or 20 minute Air-Rail link) is quite insignificant. However the advantange is much greater on short haul flights, being able to leave your office/home on Friday at 4 and arriving at Montreal or Ottawa around 6 or 7 is a huge advantange when you consider that you have to add on at minimum 20 to 40 mins to your travel just to get to Pearson airport.

And I'll make note that I am on record as being against any type of jet aircraft operating on the island.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

By the way, the city is trying to deal with noisy streetcars as well. New track installations are much quieter, the new streetcars are lighter, and the city often has water running onto the tracks at sharp turns to lubricate things which reduces the noise.

By the way. The new Q400 aircraft are among the queitest, most fuel efficient (read lighter) aircraft in service today. The Q stands for quiet .

Such a wasteful use of water though don't you think? All in the drive for noise abatement? If we were using horse drawn carriages they'd be moving to slowly to squeel when going around sharp turns. And if we padded the hooves of the horses we'd eliminate the annoying clip-clopping of their feet.

 

[adma]

That would be a good plan.



I don't think those are as much of an obstacle to having a great park.

We have a choice...
a) One of the greatest waterfronts.
b) One of the greatest airports.
or c) A mediocre airport and a mediocre park.

Then again, there's an argument that what makes the Islands "mediocre", parkwise, is exactly the kind of Tommy Thompson-era clean sweep that wiped out all the "communities" but Wards and Algonquin. (Though it was a more vocal argument 20-30 years ago, before changing parks policy "naturalized" a lot of the banal greenswards and before the taste pendulum swayed back on behalf of the funky 60s parkitecture.)

 

[ShonTron]

So I flew into Midway earlier this evening. Service was great (as I remember it last time, 2 years ago, to Ottawa), though the place was at best, 1/3 full. A lot of passengers on the Ottawa, Montreal and New York flights though.

Customs at Midway was great. Four CBP officers with nothing other to do than process Porter flights (it seemed). And baggage already unloading after going through.

 

[EnviroTO]

I think their business model is very viable. Indeed, Air Canada has been scouring the markets for used Q400s to help reduces its cost. The Q400 is a game changer. When you can run flights with 40 passengers and break even while Air Canada or Westjet needs 80 pax per flight, that's a huge advantage. My money is on Air Canada or Westjet going down before Porter based on this advantage.

On that point, which of those airlines do you think is more valuable to Toronto... Air Canada or Porter. Is the airline that focuses on shorthaul to places even Syracuse has flights to, or the global airline with direct routes to places all over the world providing Toronto with a direct flight destination list most airports in North America can only dream of? Which one really improves the competitiveness of the city on the world stage? Which one really creates employment in the area? How many of the passengers on Porter are passengers that are truly new rather than transferred from Pearson.

A380's on the island? You must be kidding! First you'd need at least a 10 000 foot runway

That paragraph which started with the word "maybe" was to show all the reasonings I have heard to rationalize how important the Toronto City Centre Airport is and how it is such a valuable resource. It was meant to be over the top because it was in response to over the top embellishments of how valuable the airport is. My point is that IF it is so damned valuable why are we going to limit it? Why cut it off at its knees with a two lane residential street, a ferry, a runway that is too short for most aircraft, noise abatement procedures, etc. We could put in an interchange ramp on the Gardiner, build a bridge, and use landfill to increase the area of the airport and allow longer runways if we wanted to. The logic that something is incredibly valuable to the city as a whole but only if severely limited makes no sense.

What is the vision of the waterfront? What is the goal? What is TRULY valuable to the city and what is not. What really brings in tourists and business and what doesn't. I just find it completely far fetched that something that saves 40 minutes (less than 22 minutes in a few years when the air rail starts) on the rare occasion of flight for a few people (500,000 annually is less than the #14 Glencairn bus) is what is valuable and a tranquil setting on the waterfront with urban beaches and a music garden are not.

 

[sjc]

On that point, which of those airlines do you think is more valuable to Toronto... Air Canada or Porter. Is the airline that focuses on shorthaul to places even Syracuse has flights to, or the global airline with direct routes to places all over the world providing Toronto with a direct flight destination list most airports in North America can only dream of? Which one really improves the competitiveness of the city on the world stage? Which one really creates employment in the area? How many of the passengers on Porter are passengers that are truly new rather than transferred from Pearson.

I think both airlines are valuable to Toronto. Whether Porter succeeds or not should not affect whether Air Canada flies to Europe or Asia. It may affect the number of large jets flying back and forth between Toronto and Ottawa/Montreal though.

Porter creates employment in downtown Toronto and in Downsview (making airplanes). While Air Canada (or at least Air Canada Jazz) also has given Bombardier business, I notice that the people in Downsview making the types of planes that Air Canada uses are being laid off while the Q400 builders are not.

At least some of Porter passengers are ones that would not have used Pearson. Driving and VIA are significant competitors to Porter. Also, some of the trips are ones that might not have been taken at all if Porter had not been there (such as Mont Tremblant flights).

Why cut it off at its knees with a two lane residential street, a ferry, a runway that is too short for most aircraft, noise abatement procedures, etc. We could put in an interchange ramp on the Gardiner, build a bridge, and use landfill to increase the area of the airport and allow longer runways if we wanted to. The logic that something is incredibly valuable to the city as a whole but only if severely limited makes no sense.

I agree. I would extend the runway away from downtown though towards Ontario Place. A 6000' runway would allow for a lot more option.

Alternatively building a new airport on the far side of the island might work too, and would bother a lot fewer people perhaps. As long as there is good transit/road access, it wouldn't be too much farther away.

EDIT: At a minimum, I would build a bridge so that the cabs can line up on the island side away from the residential areas.

What really brings in tourists and business and what doesn't. I just find it completely far fetched that something that saves 40 minutes

What brings in tourists? Airplanes bring in tourists. People from other cities can fly into the waterfront and go to shows and sports events, spending money at downtown businesses.

Regarding that 40 minutes: I find that to be a very important 40 minutes when those minutes are at 6 o'clock in the morning. Every minute counts when you are trying to get to a meeting in downtown Ottawa at 8:30am.

 

[EnviroTO]

Porter creates employment in downtown Toronto

On federal lands where it gets no revenue.

and in Downsview (making airplanes).

Which it could also do if it operated out of Pearson.

While Air Canada (or at least Air Canada Jazz) also has given Bombardier business, I notice that the people in Downsview making the types of planes that Air Canada uses are being laid off while the Q400 builders are not.

Air Canada employed them before and Porter employs them now. There is no difference. After Porter gets the remainder of its order it will no longer be employing them either.

At least some of Porter passengers are ones that would not have used Pearson.

Very very few.

Also, some of the trips are ones that might not have been taken at all if Porter had not been there (such as Mont Tremblant flights).

One point. Porter has this one new route which has people going where they might not have before. Although this is probably a net benefit to Mont Tremblant rather than Toronto. I would imagine that the disposable income of people in Toronto was not increased as a result of the flight nor was the average vacation time in Toronto so likely these people would have spent their money and vacation somewhere other than Mont Tremblant.

I agree. I would extend the runway away from downtown though towards Ontario Place. A 6000' runway would allow for a lot more option.

That is a valid point of view for someone who prioritizes convenience and air travel over other considerations.

What brings in tourists? Airplanes bring in tourists. People from other cities can fly into the waterfront and go to shows and sports events, spending money at downtown businesses.

I didn't mean what "physically" brings in the tourists. The question is what "draws them in". How many people don't go to a place because their airport isn't conveniently located?

Regarding that 40 minutes: I find that to be a very important 40 minutes when those minutes are at 6 o'clock in the morning. Every minute counts when you are trying to get to a meeting in downtown Ottawa at 8:30am.

It is convenient. Convenient like a 24 hour drive through. Convenient like a multi-car household with a garage attached to the house. Convenient like a fast moving freeway. Convenient like exercise pills and stomache stapling.

Going to Pearson would be inconvenient. Inconvenient like getting out of the car at a fast food joint. Inconvenient like walking to a bus stop and catching public transit.

 

[Dilla]

It is convenient. Convenient like a 24 hour drive through. Convenient like a multi-car household with a garage attached to the house. Convenient like a fast moving freeway. Convenient like exercise pills and stomache stapling.

Going to Pearson would be inconvenient. Inconvenient like getting out of the car at a fast food joint. Inconvenient like walking to a bus stop and catching public transit.

Finally, something we can all agree on!

 

[Hydrogen]

Very true. The Island airport is very convenient, and Pearson much less so.

Going through Pearson for a flight to Ottawa or Montreal takes more time than the actual flight itself.

 

[Sir Novelty Fashion]

With Porter, as with so many things, we're going to end up killing the thing we love. I don't know if Porter is truly profitable or sustainable at its current, adorably small size. But businesses by their nature grow until something stops them.

With Porter, we may well have had a baby bear on our hands: impossible not to love, until it grows up. Sure, Q400s are quiet. But now that it's expanded to include dozens and dozens of takeoffs and landings, those hyperbolic ads from the 2003 election of the harbour skies being full of planes are starting to look a bit less, well, hyperbolic. And now we have a new terminal, sent in from central casting, bland airport design division.

Speaking as someone who's flown Porter and loved it, I think the mayor might turn out to look prescient here.

 

[sjc]

I don't know if Porter is truly profitable or sustainable at its current, adorably small size. But businesses by their nature grow until something stops them.

They are pretty much limited by the number of takeoffs and landings that are allowed at the airport. With 20 planes, they will be pretty much at that limit. Any real expansion beyond 20 planes will have to come on non-YTZ routes, which shouldn't really impact the operations in Toronto. (20 planes = 10 planes based in YTZ, 10 based in remote airports)

If anything kills them, it will be the economy. But there is core market that will keep travelling to some extent (government/corporate), so there is some revenue to be had out there. They just need to get those people to choose Porter over Air Canada (where they often have access to the Maple Leaf Lounge).

And now we have a new terminal, sent in from central casting, bland airport design division.

Bland is usually cheaper and faster to build than non-bland. Cash and Time are two things that are in short supply this year.

 

[prosperegal]

I've flown Porter a few times and all I can say is that I love it. It's better than any of the other airlines I've ever flow. As someone who doesn't drive and lives near the TTC, it's much easier (and cheaper) for me to get to my flight. In addition, their service, both at the airport and in flight is much, much better. With AC, you get cranky, career flight attendants. West is a little bit better, but still not as good as Porter. Besides, most Porter flights include a light meal, something that you don't see all that often in domestic and flights to the US. Finally, I *LOVE* the lounge at the Island Airport. With most other airlines, you don't get anything remotely close to that unless you're flying business or first class! Porter IS, IMHO, "affordable lux."

 

[kEiThZ]

... And now we have a new terminal, sent in from central casting, bland airport design division.

I am not quite sure what you are attacking specifically here... but we have to keep in that airports (particularly regional ones) tend to be functional buildings because of all the requirements regarding how they will operate, safety, security, etc. I doubt you will find too many that look spectacular, especially if they are only 10-gate airports. I don't think the new terminal is going to be all that bad.

On that point, which of those airlines do you think is more valuable to Toronto... Air Canada or Porter. Is the airline that focuses on shorthaul to places even Syracuse has flights to, or the global airline with direct routes to places all over the world providing Toronto with a direct flight destination list most airports in North America can only dream of? Which one really improves the competitiveness of the city on the world stage? Which one really creates employment in the area? How many of the passengers on Porter are passengers that are truly new rather than transferred from Pearson.

What I was suggesting earlier is that because of the fuel efficiency issue, Air Canada or Westjet is likely to suffer well before Porter. Keep in mind that as fuel costs rise, Porter's relative advantage actually increases.

As to the value of short haul or long haul. We need both. There's obviously a market for it. That's why these airlines are in business. They aren't doing this to boost Toronto out of goodwill.

When it comes to competitiveness, I will say Porter. Anything that reduces travel times between our major cities improves competitiveness. From Union station Porter takes 3 hours to Ottawa or Montreal (city centres). With Blue 22, Air Canada or Westjet will still take 3.5 hours. At present depending on the time of day, it's closer to 4 hours. It's clear which airline adds to productivity here.

All this being said, like I have suggested before, let the city present a FEASIBLE alternative and I would support it. I am not going to support killing off a success business and demolishing built infrastructure just so the city can do nothing with the land for 2 decades. If they present a well thought out plan WITH SECURED FUNDING, I would gladly support shutting down the Island airport.

That paragraph which started with the word "maybe" was to show all the reasonings I have heard to rationalize how important the Toronto City Centre Airport is and how it is such a valuable resource. It was meant to be over the top because it was in response to over the top embellishments of how valuable the airport is. My point is that IF it is so damned valuable why are we going to limit it? .

It is valuable as a regional airport. Nobody has suggested that it needs to be an international airport. Why would we need to expand it, if it's doing its job well right now?

 

[kEiThZ]

They are pretty much limited by the number of takeoffs and landings that are allowed at the airport. With 20 planes, they will be pretty much at that limit. Any real expansion beyond 20 planes will have to come on non-YTZ routes, which shouldn't really impact the operations in Toronto. (20 planes = 10 planes based in YTZ, 10 based in remote airports)

I think we could well see Porter's expansion to other markets, particularly where they can compete with Jazz. I could see Halifax being a good logical hub. And there's rumblings that might set up out west. Those 20 planes may not necessarily all stay in Toronto forever.

If anything kills them, it will be the economy. But there is core market that will keep traveling to some extent (government/corporate), so there is some revenue to be had out there. They just need to get those people to choose Porter over Air Canada (where they often have access to the Maple Leaf Lounge).

That's why Porter's lounge is so important because it provides an alternative to the MLL. And the way corporate bookings are done (through travel agencies like AMEX) means that as long as they are competitive on price they will survive. I think the biggest challenge for them to overcome is the Aeroplan miles accumulation. How many want to give up the chance to get Elite status by flying on Porter. I don't know, but I suspect that a lot of lower end business travel will slowly migrate to Porter over time.