Yea, the economics don't seem obvious to me. Maybe the jets aren't primarily for longer distance regional travel (YTZ-LAX) but just to get quicker/more flights in on existing routes. The C-series is quite a bit faster than the Q400, so maybe they figure they could get more fares out of a single aircraft? Most budget airlines still use twin-jets, right?
Cruise speed is not relevant during short-haul. Time to cruise altitude is. The Q400 cruises at 20 000 feet. An Airbus A319 cruises at over 30 000 feet usually. This is why Q400s can actually be as fast or faster than most jets on very short-haul. Like what we have operating out of YTZ today. But outside of say a 1000km radius from YTZ, the speed advantages of jets start's getting noticeable. A flight to Halifax is 20 mins faster for example on a jet vs. a turboprop. Doesn't sound like much. But if you have one aircraft doing several runs a day to Halifax, the 20 mins per flight could mean an extra revenue generating flight in the operating day.
LAX-YTZ is ~3,500km. The figures I saw for shortfield operations suggest ranges well short of that. Most of the Westcoast markets seem too far for a reduced range C-Series, and the rest is sort of flyover country. Maybe YTZ-Calgary? YTZ-Florida/Caribbean? Those routes alone though wouldn't justify a few dozen jets, so I assume most would remain on existing routes (NYC, Mtl, Ottawa) and just try to get more passenger miles in a given day.
From the existing runway alone, they'd get at least 1300 nautical miles. Not enough to reach Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, Vegas, LA or San Fran. But certainly enough to reach Saskatchean, Texas, Cuba, etc.
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?DU=mi&MS=wls&P=YXE,+yqr,+hav,+nas,+KIN,+aus,+iah,+dfw&R=1300nm@ytz
^I'm not an aviation expert, but I still wonder if the speed of a jet and the increased range (so, I guess, the ability to turn around without refueling) makes sense on flights as short as YTZ-YUL, YTZ-YOW, YTZ-EWR, etc.
It usually doesn't. As mentioned above, time to cruise altitude matters more. You're not moving very fast when you are climbing.
I also find it strange that Porter would want to buy larger jets while Westjet is moving in the opposite direction: buying Q400s to start a regional airline that would compete directly with Porter.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the aviation market. Westjet is buying smaller aircraft to start up a regional airline that will feed its hub. Encore will be to Westjet was Air Canada Jazz (now Air Canada Express) is to AC. Porter is buying larger aircraft to give it more range and capacity. This is askin to Westjet upsizing aircraft from its 737-700 to 737-800s (and now testing 757-200s).
Again, I'm not an aviation expert, but I find the business case to be a little shaky. Pulling this off is contingent on a multimillion dollar expansion of a runway into a lake and the purchase of aircraft that are still in development on a level that would effectively double the size of the existing fleet.
Again, poor analysis. To begin with, it's a conditional order. It was a Letter of Intent to buy to be more specific. It lets Porter reserve production slots for a very minimal fee. It gives them time to go through the necessary political and regulatory processes. If they get stonewalled, they don't buy the airplanes. There's after all no obligation on them to actually buy the aircraft.
Like I said, I respect the right of private corporations to make free decisions on how they want to run or grow their business. On the other hand, it's a two way street: corporations should respect that private people have the right to make decisions on where they choose to invest their money. Personally, I wouldn't invest in Porter's business plan in a million years. As a taxpayer, I have every right not to see my hard earned tax money used to support what I perceive to be a very flimsy investment opportunity without my permission. If they finagle a way to get some level of higher government to subsidize them, whether it's a sweetheart deal to purchase Bombardier jets or any assistance to expand their runway - I will vocally protest this.
Yea, I've got no real clue either. Notwithstanding Westjet though, the vast majority of low-cost carriers still use 737s or A320 family aircraft. So I assume the business case for those aircraft still exists on short-haul routes.
More seats = lower unit cost. A simple analogy. A minivan with 5 passengers still burns less gas per passenger than a sub-compact carrying two passengers.
Westjet's Q400 services are also targeted at
very marginal travel markets. I've honestly never even heard of Castlegar, BC. Presumably their operating criteria on these routes only involve a handful of passengers per flight, so profitability depends on getting the absolute lowest cost-per seat possible. Different from Toronto - New York.
Again, a very poor understanding of the aviation market. Lots of competition on Toronto-New York. Not so much on Castlegar-Calgary. And those passengers from Castlegar will then have their pick of flights onward when they reach Calgary. The problem for Westjet is that they would need at least 80-90 passengers per day on their smallest aircraft (737-600) to break even servicing Castlegar. They need 45 passengers per day to breakeven with a Q400. Hence, the smaller aircraft.
This is not at all analogous to the challenge that Porter faces which needs to grow its business by servicing higher yield destinations, further away, from a highly constrained main operating base.
Ohh yeah, Porter's definitely tries to use public opinion to its business advantage. It's no shock they've gone with the C-Series, the Federal Government's little industrial welfare baby, as opposed to other narrowbody twinjets. I imagine a A319 with the same engine would have similar noise and performance specifications as the C-Series, but no political benefits.
People love to complain about Bombardier's "subsidies" which are usually just loan guarantees. Want to know why the feds do that? Because Bombardier is going up against Boeing which is backed by the US Government and its EXIM bank or Airbus and the direct subsidies provided by the European Union. All that the feds is provide loan guarantees for companies buying Bombardier aircraft to ensure that financing rates are competitive.
Conversely, of course, we could have Canada give up tens of thousands of highly paid, highly skilled jobs. I'm sure selling condos and cappucinos to each other is highly sustainable in the long run.....
That said, and I may have missed this, but are they expecting a public subsidy for the runway expansion? I assumed it would be paid for through airport improvement fees like the tunnel project.
I haven't seen any expectation of a public subsidy. I would expect the TPA to pay for it with their revenues from AIFs. They might however get a loan from the feds. That would be understandable. This is how Pearson built Terminal 1.
Also, Porter has actually funded improvements entirely by itself. It paid for improvements to the ILS at YTZ to ensure that fewer planes had to divert to Pearson during deteriorating weather. If it came down to it, I would bet Porter would pay the whole things themselves. There's enough of a business case for it.
