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

[Eug]

With the VIA strike looming, I wonder how much extra business Porter is getting this week.

I've been trying to get my GF to take Porter forever, but she always just took the train. Well, this weekend she's taking Porter.

I wonder if she'll be another convert. Every other person I know who has taken Porter has loved it.

 

[Swamp Thing]

I read it "the noisiest, stinkiest airport in a recreational area of our city". There are no other airports in a recreational area of our city so by default the island airport is both the cleanest and the stinkiest in the category "airport in a recreational area in our city".

I read it the way it was quoted, which was: "Nothing justifies having the noisiest, stinkiest airport in the best recreational area in our city, and they're getting a paltry sum in terms of revenue for that kind of exclusive use of that kind of real estate."

The bit about "a paltry sum in terms of revenue " has already been rebutted nicely, as has the bit about "the noisiest, stinkiest airport".

Myself, I'm not sure how airport grounds qualify as "the best recreational area in our city", except perhaps in Brian Iler's dreams. It's misguided to assume that the alternative to an airport in that location would be a recreational area. The alternative would almost certainly be leases or sales for private use, not necessarily excluding condo towers.

(Are we sure Community Air isn't funded by condo developers?)

 

[kEiThZ]

... and the A321s that Air Canada flies on the Montreal route are no less fuel efficient than the Q400. Only on routes with aircraft smaller than the A321 does the Q400 come out more fuel efficient per seat.

If you know anything about aviation you'll know that's not true. You can't exactly stay at cruise altitude for long on a flight to Montreal. A Q400 operating out of the island might hit its cruise altitude before it leaves the GTA. An A321 operating out of Pearson might not hit cruising altitude until Kingston. And that discussion excludes the pollution created on the surface while taxiing (turbofans are even worse on the ground compared to turboprops than they are in the air).

If what you say was true, Air Canada would most certainly have cut its schedule down, bought a few more A321s and filled them up to save on gas. Airlines are after all, arguably the most fuel conscious organizations in business.

 

[kEiThZ]

Profitability and use isn't everything. Most gangs are quite profitable and their wares are well used. A city park is never profitable, nor a sidewalk, nor a road.

But most city parks don't have residents who pay close to nothing in rent for waterfront property either. As long as there are high class hobos staying on the island it should matter what kind of revenue the airport is generating. And despite the few NIMBY complaints, I have yet to hear any group that runs a waterfront tourist service (centreville, ontario place, etc.) complain about Porter having any impact on their business. And I would suggest that most park goers aren't likely to complain much either....after all the flight paths aren't over the Islands anyway.

 

[Epi]

Myself, I'm not sure how airport grounds qualify as "the best recreational area in our city", except perhaps in Brian Iler's dreams. It's misguided to assume that the alternative to an airport in that location would be a recreational area. The alternative would almost certainly be leases or sales for private use, not necessarily excluding condo towers.

You're right. If the airport weren't there here's what would be there.

1) Exclusive marina for millionaire's boats.
2) Fenced off area that the average person cannot go to.
3) Bridge so rich people can drive to boats.

Well either that or some kind of film studio, electric power plant or random nature preserve which is off limits.

 

[casaguy]

There are a few airlines that I think Porter could team up with.

Is an alliance with another airline really the way to go here? Is this really a goal for Porter? Does their longevity depend on it?

I just don't think so.

Perhaps I am in the minority, but I love Porter for the boutique experience and the simple short haul flights. Knowing that Porter was weighed down by being part of a cumbersome international system (being forced to wait for connections, luggage issues, etc) is not attractive. That is why you would go to Pearson.

I'm sure they can expand and be profitable by being a self-contained airline for short haul trips. If they can just get us back and forth safely, with a smile and above par service then they'll have no problem getting repeat business in the centres they serve. So far it seems to be working.

 

[jn_12]

You make some good points, and to be honest they're still years away from anything like that. They need to figure out what this airline can do before it tries to find partners. When they're ready, if they can find partners with common goals, strategies and mindset, then they can come up with a strategy that would be both profitable and consumer friendly. However, I do think Porter has some desire to be in a partnership eventually if only to legitimize itself as a player (besides increasing profits ).


Also, with regards to Porter getting some more customers because of the VIA strike, a similar thing happened last year where AC, WJ or VIA were having issues and Porter ended up selling out every flight that day to Montreal and Ottawa. Can't recall the exact issue, but it made for one hectic day, that's for sure. I was definitely glad to be working the morning shift when people are still half asleep and don't care if their plane is 5 minutes late to depart.

Trying to board multiple full flights under the current set up (whereby one corridor leads to every gate) is near impossible to do with every flight going out on time. With top notch people it can be done, but you're only as good as your weakest link sometimes. I would full expect on-time performance to improve once the new terminal is built.

 

[Dan416]

Let those sad NIMBYs come to Mississauga and see how they like it.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

And just what do the island residents contribute to the city? Do they even pay property taxes?

Additionally if the island is "supposed" to be our grand recreational area then exactly how do the island residents fit into that? Who is really supposed to benefit from turning the island airport into a recreational area. City residents or Island residents? Bottom line if you are not willing to remove the island residents and turn that area into recreational space as well then you have no right to demand that the airport come down.

I might also want to remind the leader of community air that the short haul flights happen regardless of airport of origin. If they don't fly out of the island they'll fly out of Pearson so the overall pollution impact is nill. Of course there will be localized pollution when using the island but I wonder how the residents of Malton and Mississauga feel about island residents wanting to shift localized pollution from the island to Pearson. Furthermore the planes that Porter are using are among the most fuel efficient and clean aircraft flying today. The CRJ's that AC runs on these short haul flights are much more polluting.

 

[sjc]

>>>Perhaps I am in the minority, but I love Porter for the boutique experience and the simple short haul flights. Knowing that Porter was weighed down by being part of a cumbersome international system (being forced to wait for connections, luggage issues, etc) is not attractive. That is why you would go to Pearson.<<<

There isn't any real reason why it can't be both. If they offer frequent service to an airport that another airline uses as a hub, they can offer connecting opportunities without impacting their O&D customers at all. You can fly to Newark and connect to a US airline or you can simply leave the airport at Newark. People going to New York/New Jersey aren't affected at all by the connection opportunities.

This assumes frequent service. Non-connecting passengers could potentially if there are not many flights and they focus timing to connecting flights rather than when people want to go to that city. This shouldn't be a real problem though, if they offer at least 5-6 flights a day.

There is, of course, the danger that the planes will fill up with connecting passengers reducing the number of seats available to non-connecting ones. On the other hand, if the planes are full, they will be inclined to increase their frequency.

One other area where they would have to decide between connecting and non-connecting traffic is in choosing airports. In Cleveland, for example, flying to Burke would be convenient for people going to downtown Cleveland, but not for people wanting to connect on to other destinations. In these situations, they might want to consider offering service to both airports with flights timed for connecting at CLE and flights timed for business and/or tourists at BKE.

Personally, I would prefer downtown airports over connecting ones if it comes down to a choice, though.

 

[kEiThZ]

I might also want to remind the leader of community air that the short haul flights happen regardless of airport of origin. If they don't fly out of the island they'll fly out of Pearson so the overall pollution impact is nill.

That's where that whole NIMBY thing comes in. They really mean it when they say "Not in my backyard". But hey if you live in Weston, we have no problem with ramming old, stinky RDCs right by your home just so we don't get disturbed while having High Tea. And those wretched souls who live in the Malton, Rexdale or Mississauga...well, they like living in the flight path of giant aircraft.

 

[Eug]

That's where that whole NIMBY thing comes in. They really mean it when they say "Not in my backyard". But hey if you live in Weston, we have no problem with ramming old, stinky RDCs right by your home just so we don't get disturbed while having High Tea. And those wretched souls who live in the Malton, Rexdale or Mississauga...well, they like living in the flight path of giant aircraft.

To be fair, at the time the bridge was cancelled for example, the majority of the City of Toronto opposed it...

...much to my dismay. I lived right at Front and Bathurst and really was looking forward to having a functional Airport right down the street. I really didn't understand the public's stance on this, but it was enough to get Miller elected.

As far as I can now tell though, the public has come around, but it's now too late to build the bridge, at least for the near term.

 

[Dan416]

To be fair, at the time the bridge was cancelled for example, the majority of the City of Toronto opposed it...

...much to my dismay. I lived right at Front and Bathurst and really was looking forward to having a functional Airport right down the street. I really didn't understand the public's stance on this, but it was enough to get Miller elected.

As far as I can now tell though, the public has come around, but it's now too late to build the bridge, at least for the near term.

It's funny how public opinion can change like that? If that same election were held again, knowing what we know now, Miller would lose badly.

I'm sad that I'm not a resident of Toronto, cuz if I was I'd boot Miller's ass. I'm not saying he hasn't done any good for Toronto. But Toronto isn't flourishing like it should with a cooperative provincial government. McGuinty would be the perfect premier with whom to institute a continuous subway-building program.

Also, now that the public is on-side, Miller could bring back the island airport bridge without issue (aside from NIMBYs).

 

[Automation Gallery]

I might also want to remind the leader of community air that the short haul flights happen regardless of airport of origin. If they don't fly out of the island they'll fly out of Pearson so the overall pollution impact is nill. Of course there will be localized pollution when using the island but I wonder how the residents of Malton and Mississauga feel about island residents wanting to shift localized pollution from the island to Pearson. Furthermore the planes that Porter are using are among the most fuel efficient and clean aircraft flying today. The CRJ's that AC runs on these short haul flights are much more polluting.

If they want to talk pollution, they should be looking at the 3 or 4 stinky 50-80 year diesel engined ferries that at the moment are in service to the islands.

 

[Eug]

If they want to talk pollution, they should be looking at the 3 or 4 stinky 50-80 year diesel engined ferries that at the moment are in service to the islands.

Heh. That's what I was thinking. Too bad it actually cost us more in real spent dollars NOT to build the bridge than actually build it.

Anyways, Porter was delayed in the late afternoon today because of the storms. According to my significant other who was there, Michael Ignatieff didn't seem to happy about the situation, but was a gentleman about it nonetheless.