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

I heard that Philadelphia and Washington are in their plans, Detriot would be nice being so close to Windsor. Just wondering if it would be possible (aprox. 1600km) to fly from Toronto non-stop to Tampa or Dallas with the Q400 aircraft.
 
Automation Gallery said:
I heard that Philadelphia and Washington are in their plans, Detriot would be nice being so close to Windsor. Just wondering if it would be possible (aprox. 1600km) to fly from Toronto non-stop to Tampa or Dallas with the Q400 aircraft.
Click to expand...

The aircraft is not the limiting factor. The Q400 could get about 2500km of range. But it can't do that off a 3900ft runway. To max out on the Q400's range you'd need 4600ft of runway. Someday, if this city ever decides to maximize the use of the Island airport, it could add an extra 600-700 feet to the runway and then have non-stop Porter flights all over the eastern half of North America.

Never mind Tampa and Dallas, with that extra bit of runway Porter could run flights to Cuba. Here's an idea of a few of the places you could fly if the Island ever got that minimal extension:

http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=...&RANGE-STYLE=best&RANGE-COLOR=navy&MAP-STYLE=

Forget the bridge, Deluce should be campaigning for this 700ft extension.
 
^
So then why do so many airlines run >2500km flights with narrowbody jetliners as opposed to Q400 turboprop aircraft?
 
Whoaccio said:
^
So then why do so many airlines run >2500km flights with narrowbody jetliners as opposed to Q400 turboprop aircraft?
Click to expand...

If there is demand on the route (ie. you can fill a 100 seater), then narrowbody's are still more cost efficient....and there are no turboprops that carry more than 70-80 passengers. The Q400 is the biggest turboprop in the market today...until Bombardier comes out with the Q400X (a 90 seater). The other big reason is speed. Airlines calculate schedules on block times. The jets enable tighter schedules and can make up time for small delays in the air. Higher speeds also means higher utilization rates. And that's what determines how much the airline makes: how long the plane is up in the air each day. Other than that though the regional jet phenomenon is coming to an end. 50 seater jets are rather expensive to run. Many airlines make little to no profit on these routes. They run them simply to allow the passengers to connect to more profitable flights. Even the 70 seat regional jets might be in danger these days with fuel prices being what they are. The only thing saving them is the fact that they are often roomier allowing airlines to offer a seamless in-flight experience across the fleet (see Air Canada's Embraers). But on any route less than 500 nautical miles (925km) there is no question that the Q400 (exceptionally fast for a turboprop) is actually faster (less time to climb to cruise altitude) than a RJ and more fuel efficient.

Lastly, A large part of the problem with turboprops has been the image issue. There is a public bias towards flying on turbojet aircraft and its difficult to convince the public that a Q400 is as modern (or better) than the jet aircraft they would fly. That's what makes me particularly happy about Porter. They are finally educating the public about the virtues of modern turboprops.
 
Last edited:
threnody said:
A nice idea, but it doesn't seem very feasible considering the current runway takes up the entire width of the island.
Click to expand...

I was thinking about extending it a little bit out into the harbour using infill. It would not take much to add 700 feet. And aside from adding more range to departing aircraft, it would significantly reduce the need for diversions to Pearson when returning during bad weather.
 
Just to add, Porter has flown to Myrtle Beach. It's also done direct flights to Halifax in the winter.

The problem is that these types of places tend to necessitate a lot of baggage. There just isn't the room in the back of the plane to fit 70 passengers and their bags. It was a huge problem at christmas time with the halifax route. Not only can the plane not physically fit enough bags, it reaches it's Maximum take-off weight (MTOW) before it gets to that point. The amount of money spent to ship these bags in other ways is a really big deterrent (well at least it should be, but Porter has run into this issue two years in a row, and probably will again this winter simply out of stubbornness).

Essentially, they need to determine what type of airline this will be. Once you start going to farther destinations you start pandering more to the leisure flyer who tends to pack heavy. It kinda goes against Porter's business model despite the fact they've had some success shifting to the leisure market. They're going to have a bit of an identity crisis eventually.
 
Try flying to Caracas on a perpetually sold-out A319. Air Canada's still playing catch-up from too much luggage from last year.
 
I am not saying there won't be challenges. When you operate at the edge of an aircraft's range-payload curve you'll have some trade-offs. In this fantasy Porter could configure a few birds with fewer seats and more luggage racks. With a plane that breaks even with 35-40 pax there's a lot of options. For Halifax by the way it's not the MTOW. The plane would not leave the island at MTOW. It's probably cargo space or simply payload limited by takeoff distance. It's a shame that Porter is limited to 500 nm. Look ar Flybe in Europe if you want an idea of the potential of turboprops.
 
unimaginative2 said:
Is that actually the plan?
Click to expand...

Just speculating... But the A320 fleet is getting old and AC has been quietly whittling down their numbers and replacing them with Embraers. It's too bad they didn't wait for Bomabardier's Cseries. It would have been faster, more fuel efficient and more comfortable than both the Embraer and Airbus fleets.
 
kEiThZ said:
I am not saying there won't be challenges. When you operate at the edge of an aircraft's range-payload curve you'll have some trade-offs. In this fantasy Porter could configure a few birds with fewer seats and more luggage racks. With a plane that breaks even with 35-40 pax there's a lot of options. For Halifax by the way it's not the MTOW. The plane would not leave the island at MTOW. It's probably cargo space or simply payload limited by takeoff distance. It's a shame that Porter is limited to 500 nm. Look ar Flybe in Europe if you want an idea of the potential of turboprops.
Click to expand...

It is MTOW for the Island. Obviously a longer take off distance would allow for greater weights to be carried, but that's not the current or foreseeable situation. In the meantime, bags are often left off (especially in inclement weather) because of weight issues.

Also, the problem with less people on board and more bags is the weight and balance issues that this situation creates. There's not much room in the front cargo hold (maybe 7 bags max) and a plane with less than 60 people but a full cargo hold causes problems (like being unable to take off unless bags are left off).

The fact is that when bags get left off people get pissed and blame the airline. If they know this is a perpetual problem, they're less likely to fly with that airline.
 
jn_12 said:
It is MTOW for the Island.
Click to expand...

Not to nitpick but that's not MTOW. MTOW = Maximum Take-off Weight. That number is consistent regardless of any other condition. What you are referring to is a weight restriction based on take-off distance. It is a balanced field length based on a specific fuel load and payload.

jn_12 said:
Obviously a longer take off distance would allow for greater weights to be carried, but that's not the current or foreseeable situation. In the meantime, bags are often left off (especially in inclement weather) because of weight issues.

Also, the problem with less people on board and more bags is the weight and balance issues that this situation creates. There's not much room in the front cargo hold (maybe 7 bags max) and a plane with less than 60 people but a full cargo hold causes problems (like being unable to take off unless bags are left off).

The fact is that when bags get left off people get pissed and blame the airline. If they know this is a perpetual problem, they're less likely to fly with that airline.
Click to expand...

Like I said, there would be challenges if they wanted to fly further and it would most likely involve a significantly smaller passenger load (not a problem for an airplane that makes a profit with 35-40 passengers on-board). Weight and balance is a tough one. I guess you could close all the seats at the back (say the last 3-5 rows) for longer flights (little out of service signs?) to put all the pax forward (that's essentially the big weight and balance issue anyway...front-rear moment distributions...and they do work out if you move all the pax forward since they always weigh more than their bags anyway). I'd agree that the luggage issue is a tough one too. But it's not insurmountable. For example, Porter could have less luggage allowances for longer flights.

There'd be challenges with longer flights if Porter wanted to target the tourist market. However, with Porter's current range restriction from the Island it can miss out not just the tourist market but some key business travel markets. That's where a runway extension would really benefit Porter.

I just find it ridiculous that they can't make Halifax from the Island and that probably has more to do with payload restrictions arising from the short balanced field length than running out of luggage space (which obviously happens sometimes as you've pointed out). It should be noted that a higher take-off weight (achievable with a longer runway) arising from a longer flight (more fuel) would also solve a lot of weight and balance issues since the fuel tanks are often ahead of the centre of gravity anyway and filling them up will often help move the cg forward anyway.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top