Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5733956/

Topic: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: drgmobile
Posted 2013-04-09 06:37:21 and read 24013 times.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Porter could announce a C-Series order as early tomorrow. The aircraft can NOT land at Billy Bishop user current rules. Community opposition would be fierce to any change in the rules.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...rter-cseries-idUSL3N0CW1GI20130409

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-04-09 06:44:24 and read 23979 times.

So twelve firm orders. This is good news. Why now and not at the Paris Airshow?


Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: Noise
Posted 2013-04-09 06:44:39 and read 23982 times.

Is this a joke? Or does this mean we're actually going to see Porter expand outside of their home base of YTZ?

If this is true, Porter is going to be capable of offering transcontinental flights out of pretty much any Canadians city they already serve. This can be very very interesting...an airline catering to the business community in a way that goes head-to-head with Air Canada and in a way that frankly WestJet can't match.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YTZ
Posted 2013-04-09 06:45:31 and read 23979 times.

Still stunned at the news.

It's not just community opposition to noise (which is really retrograde to be honest). It's also a question of how exactly can Porter operate this aircraft from the Island. Short runways will either prohibit or limit utility of this aircraft from the Island.

So I wonder is Deluce going to push to extend the runway and lift the opposition to "jets" (a good case can be made that the CS100 is as quiet as the Q400)? Or is the plan to base these aircraft elsewhere?

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: Noise
Posted 2013-04-09 06:46:41 and read 23944 times.

Porter will be forced to use a hub other than YTZ in this case. YYZ? YOW? Expansion out west?

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: drgmobile
Posted 2013-04-09 07:09:08 and read 23742 times.

Canada has a history of third airlines entering the main business markets followed by a slug fest. One of the articles mentions US destinations but presumably these would need domestic feed.

A conspiracy theorist might speculate that this could be Deluce's way of adding some pressure to the competition to tip the scales toward being bought out,

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: queb
Posted 2013-04-09 07:39:53 and read 23508 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 3):
Short runways will either prohibit or limit utility of this aircraft from the Island.

Per Cseries brochure page 29 (thanks to AviaPoncho   ) :

http://media.bombardiercms.com/cseri...series_download_high_en_032c3a.pdf

http://i70.servimg.com/u/f70/17/03/84/59/cserie14.jpg

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: mesaflyguy
Posted 2013-04-09 08:02:46 and read 23322 times.

It'll be interesting to see what comes of this, but, just for arguments sake, if they do decided to run these out of YTZ, is there sufficient ramp space availible for these aircraft?

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: bobloblaw
Posted 2013-04-09 08:05:17 and read 23295 times.

Quoting YTZ" class="quote" target="_blank">YTZ (Reply 3):
It's not just community opposition to noise (which is really retrograde to be honest). It's also a question of how exactly can Porter operate this aircraft from the Island. Short runways will either prohibit or limit utility of this aircraft from the Island.

Obviously they aren't going to operate these from YTZ. This is very risky especially given Porter isn't a LCC.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: HOONS90
Posted 2013-04-09 08:18:00 and read 23192 times.

I've heard YHZ as a possible base for expansion.

I've seen a model of a C-series aircraft in Porter livery at one of their offices at YTZ before. That was back in early 2011.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: Aviaponcho
Posted 2013-04-09 08:18:55 and read 23173 times.

De rien Queb

I was looking at LCY but I failed

Anyway, the CS100 will be at 1200-1500 Nm from YTZ seems enough for florida and gulf od mexico coast

[Edited 2013-04-09 08:19:21]

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: StarAC17
Posted 2013-04-09 08:20:05 and read 23153 times.

Quoting queb (Reply 6):
Per Cseries brochure page 29 (thanks to AviaPoncho   ) :

Moot point because as of right now Jets of any kind are banned out of YTZ, that has to change first.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: queb
Posted 2013-04-09 08:29:35 and read 23103 times.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 11):
Moot point because as of right now Jets of any kind are banned out of YTZ, that has to change first.

Indeed, but if Porter intends to operate the CS100 from Bishop Airport, they probably already approached a few months ago the City of Toronto, the port and the federal government to change the tripartite agreement.

It's surely not a coincidence if Bombardier says the CS100 can take off in 1219 meters, which is exactly the same length of the YTZ runway.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: bakersdozen
Posted 2013-04-09 08:40:41 and read 22999 times.

Was there not speculation from Porter a few months ago (Dec./Jan?) of expanding out west... maybe it is NOT a coincidence that they appear to have expressed interest to Bombardier at the same time (article says Dec.).

Speculation: Is there a plan in the works for flights to YVR and YYC from Posted 2013-04-09 08:53:47 and read 22887 times.

This seems like a terrible idea. My guess is they're looking for some good press in YUL, maybe their loads have been flagging a bit.

Supposing this story checks out, PD will get run ragged trying to attract CNX traffic through their little commuter terminal. They'll have to move to Pearson and slug it out with the big guys, or accept their fate as a Toronto O&D carrier.

What Canada needs in terms of air travel is not another Toronto-centric carrier, it needs more long/thin routes connecting secondary markets without the need to go into Toronto.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: flyyul
Posted 2013-04-09 08:57:05 and read 22841 times.

This won't be Toronto centric. I fully expect Porter to base these aircraft in Ottawa, Montreal, Halifax etc

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: voodoo
Posted 2013-04-09 09:19:50 and read 22680 times.

Quoting flyyul (Reply 15):
This won't be Toronto centric. I fully expect Porter to base these aircraft in Ottawa, Montreal, Halifax etc

Yup. Seems like a plan to me ... YTZ Q400s will take care of their Toronto traffic. C-series based outside Toronto will bypass the hub hassle altogether with particular advantages against both AC and WJ aircraft.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: Noise
Posted 2013-04-09 09:24:25 and read 22630 times.

Quoting flyyul (Reply 15):
This won't be Toronto centric. I fully expect Porter to base these aircraft in Ottawa, Montreal, Halifax etc

What I was thinking. Targeting premium passengers traveling between YHZ, YUL, YYT, Posted 2013-04-09 09:49:01 and read 22441 times.

Quoting flyyul (Reply 15):
This won't be Toronto centric. I fully expect Porter to base these aircraft in Ottawa, Montreal, Halifax etc

Agreed.

I would love to see a third airline here in Canada. Gives more options to the public.

Either way...congrads to BBD and Porter....if its true!

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: yyz717
Posted 2013-04-09 10:09:15 and read 22049 times.

Quoting YTZ" class="quote" target="_blank">Reply 3):
Still stunned at the news.

Same. Porter has been hinting at another order, I assumed it would be more Q400's.

Quoting YTZ" class="quote" target="_blank">Reply 3):
It's not just community opposition to noise (which is really retrograde to be honest).

It's very retrograde.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 11):
Moot point because as of right now Jets of any kind are banned out of
Quoting queb (Reply 12):
Indeed, but if Porter intends to operate the CS100 from Bishop Airport, they probably already approached a few months ago the City of Toronto, the port and the federal government to change the tripartite agreement.

Agreed. I could see a limited number of slot "exceptions" for the CS100 to start. There will be controversy   but it will pass in time. Medivac flights are allowed now. Falcon 10's are regular visitors.


Quoting bakersdozen (Reply 13):
Was there not speculation from Porter a few months ago (Dec./Jan?) of expanding out west...

Yes. YWG was hinted at in an interview with the Globe and Mail a few weeks ago. Porter has its eye on the high regional yields in Western Canada.





[Edited 2013-04-09 10:13:21]

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-04-09 10:15:13 and read 21915 times.

Two things to note here:

1. The runway is, as other posters have noted, more than adequate for Porters operations. Although it may seem surprising given the size difference, the CS100 has better short field performance than the Q400.

2. The CS100 is, by current known specifications, expected to be quieter than both the Q400 and the ATR 72-600. Off the top of my head the CS100 is forecast to come in at 255 EPNdB and the ATR is assessed at 255.3 EPNdB. The Q400 is louder still.

The C Series is a real game changer.


Dan  

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YYZYYT
Posted 2013-04-09 10:18:20 and read 21836 times.

Quoting queb (Reply 12):
Indeed, but if Porter intends to operate the CS100 from Bishop Airport, they probably already approached a few months ago the City of Toronto, the port and the federal government to change the tripartite agreement.

Interesting. Allow me to play Devil's advocate:

When Porter was first proposed, and during the turbulent times pre-launch, the political climate was very different.

Then, the climate was decidedly chilly for Porter: Miller in City Hall, the Liberals in Ottawa (playing to a strong Toronto constituency in a minority Parliament).

Now: Ford at City Hall, and Harper in Ottawa (who will never get the votes of the downtown Toronto core, and who knows it). A much more fertile ground for the argument tat Toronto will be better off with expanded service from the airport.

Along with the different political climate, add into the mix airport improvements (which include noise barriers) and the fact that the C-Series is said to be more quiet than the Dash 8-400.

Maybe Porter is planning anther run at the jets issue? Does someone there know anything that we don't?

Quoting Noise (Reply 17):
What I was thinking. Targeting premium passengers traveling between YHZ, YUL, YYT, YOW, etc...

I read a little while ago that Porter has better brans recognition out east than WestJet.

As a frequent traveller to YYT, here's hoping!!

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: Noise
Posted 2013-04-09 10:21:07 and read 21798 times.

I guess we'll wait and see if this is really true. If it is, I can see a number of options:

1) Operations/Hub will continue to be based out of YTZ, with the C100s serving major high-yielding destinations in the US and Canada outside the range of the Q400 or heavy trunk routes such as YTZ-YUL. This can happen if the ban on jet airliners is liften, and if Toronto City Hall is satisfied with the relatively quieter C100

2) Aircrafts will be based out of YOW, YUL and YHZ and expansion will occur out of these markets, again towards high yielding trunk routes.

3) Expansion out west, with YWG, YYC, YEG, YVR, YXE and YQR seeing service.

In any case, any expansion on the part of Porter Airlines is welcome. How does their product compare to AC's or WJ's proposed premium economy cabin?

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-04-09 10:32:46 and read 21607 times.

Quoting bakersdozen (Reply 13):
Linking up Canada would be great.

A fully loaded Cs100 on half tanks can reach any point in N.America from YTZ.

Quoting rampbro (Reply 14):

What Canada needs in terms of air travel is not another Toronto-centric carrier, it needs more long/thin routes connecting secondary markets without the need to go into Toronto.

If Porter gets these planes, there's nothing stopping them from using any airport in Canada to anywhere in N.America. If they want to expand, moving outside of the confines of Billy Bishop is inevitable.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: davs5032
Posted 2013-04-09 10:53:52 and read 21256 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 3):
So I wonder is Deluce going to push to extend the runway and lift the opposition to "jets" (a good case can be made that the CS100 is as quiet as the Q400)?

So assuming that the CS100 can operate on the runway, and assuming that the jet prohibition is based on noise more than anything else, there would seem to be a reasonable chance it will get amended to allow operations. I have a feeling that the public support to change the current rule may get a boost given that the proposed plane is Canadian made. If the anti-jet sentiment is solely based on noise limitation, however, and the CS100 is really quieter than the Q400/ATR 72-600, then such amendment might be successful regardless.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 23):
If Porter gets these planes, there's nothing stopping them from using any airport in Canada to anywhere in N.America. If they want to expand, moving outside of the confines of Billy Bishop is inevitable.

Could definitely present a good business opportunity for Porter if successful.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: yowza
Posted 2013-04-09 11:11:16 and read 21705 times.

Would I be getting greedy if I asked (begged?!) for a YTZ-YYT-LCY service?  

Dreams aside, if we just take a casual look at what's within 1500NM of YTZ there is no shortage of good markets and who wouldn't want to be steps from downtown rather than landing in the arse end Mississauga? I wonder how they are going to get that no jets policy overturned.



YOWza

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: haggisman
Posted 2013-04-09 11:13:46 and read 21626 times.

CBC also reporting this

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/stor...ess-porter-cseries-bombardier.html

Steve

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YTZ
Posted 2013-04-09 11:16:57 and read 21950 times.

Quoting davs5032 (Reply 24):
assuming that the jet prohibition is based on noise more than anything else

We can have a long discussion on this. But to sum up, the rule may have initially been created by concerns about noise. However, in the last 20 years, the rule has been seen by anti-airport opponents as a way of preventing any viable airline from taking up at YTZ. They see it as a way to prevent expansion.

Porter caught them absolutely off-guard by buying the biggest prop plane it could possibly operate from the Island.

This is why the whole issue is juvenile at best. If the opponents were truly concerned about noise, we'd have rules akin to what's seen at LCY. But the reality is that the opponents of the airport have as their ultimate aim, the elimination of the airport entirely. Heck, one of the previous mayor's idols was a Chicago mayor who bulldozed their downtown airport in the middle of the night.

The current mayor and federal government are far more amenable to Porter. Where city council stands is a toss-up. I hope Porter tries on this issue. But I will concede that it will be a tough fight for them. Their opponents are not concerned about noise. They are going for the jugular and will take any stick they can get to beat Porter with.

If you want an ironic laugh, check out Community AIR's webpage. They were recently lamenting Porter's treatment of its workers owing to the ongoing refuellers and cleaners strike. All while their stated goal is to put their employer out of business entirely, promising a future where those employees will join the unemployment line instead of getting fairer treatment.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: haggisman
Posted 2013-04-09 11:25:10 and read 21818 times.

From the CBC article:

" ... The range of a CSeries jet is more than 5,400 kilometres — wide enough to extend Porter's reach across Canada, the U.S. and to Caribbean destinations. .. "

Now if they were to fly out of YYZ, then that'd be true - but they should have maybe qualified the 5400km number for smaller airports with short runways

Steve

[Edited 2013-04-09 11:32:34]

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: voodoo
Posted 2013-04-09 11:29:40 and read 21680 times.

Quoting haggisman (Reply 28):
Hmmm ..I wonder where CBC got the notion that the range of the C Series jet was "over 5400km" - thats 2900 Nautical Miles. Maybe they were looking at specs for the CS300 instead? If they're doing on an article on a specific model, maybe they should use the correct specs  

via Google to this? :

http://farnborough.aero.bombardier.com/pdf/CSeries_Range_Map.pdf

Clearly, there is 'range', and there is 'range from YTZ'. Two different things.

[Edited 2013-04-09 11:33:19]

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: airbuscanada
Posted 2013-04-09 11:35:32 and read 21574 times.

Extract from aviaton week analysis

“ Bombardier says the CS100 can fly 1,500 nm from London City Airport [which has a 4,900-ft runway ], so it will be less out of Toronto,” Doerksen says. “This would probably rule out transcontinental flights, but would put cities such as Winnipeg and Halifax well within range and also allow the airline to fly to points potentially as far south as Florida.”

If the restrictions can be removed based on the aircraft’s significantly reduced noise footprint, compared with existing jets , “the CSeries [is] an ideal aircraft for Billy Bishop,” says Walter Spracklin, an analyst with Canada’s RBC Capital Markets.

“However, we believe that significant rework at Billy Bishop . . . will have to be completed before the CS100 is able to fly out of the island airport,” he says.

Almost exclusive access to Toronto’s downtown airport has been the biggest reason for Porter’s growth, says Doerksen. The airline carried 2.45 million passengers last year and averaged a 64.3% load factor on its fleet of 20 Q400s .

Establishing a CSeries hub at Toronto Pearson or in Montreal would be a major shift in Porter’s business model. “They have a recognized brand that people associate with the convenience of the island airport ,” says Doerksen.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: haggisman
Posted 2013-04-09 11:36:17 and read 21535 times.

Quoting voodoo (Reply 29):

Quoting haggisman (Reply 28):
Hmmm ..I wonder where CBC got the notion that the range of the C Series jet was "over 5400km" - thats 2900 Nautical Miles. Maybe they were looking at specs for the CS300 instead? If they're doing on an article on a specific model, maybe they should use the correct specs  

via Google to this? :

http://farnborough.aero.bombardier.c...p.pdf

Yes, I just realised that and corrected my post. It is kinda cool because that kind of range potentially gives them the legs to go YVR to Hawaii  

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: Fiedman
Posted 2013-04-09 11:42:55 and read 21395 times.

Quoting Noise (Reply 22):
3) Expansion out west, with YWG, YYC, YEG, YVR, YXE and YQR seeing service.

Could there be an option of not just flying the C-Series out west but also maybe also relocate some of their Q400s out west too for iner-city operations out west as well

And could they use the option for 18 narrow-body commercial planes for Q400s to base out west?

[Edited 2013-04-09 11:44:38]

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YTZ
Posted 2013-04-09 11:46:20 and read 21334 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 23):
A fully loaded Cs100 on half tanks can reach any point in N.America from YTZ.

Can an aircraft so configured actually accomplish that from a runway shorter than 4000ft?

Quoting yowza (Reply 25):
Dreams aside, if we just take a casual look at what's within 1500NM of YTZ there is no shortage of good markets and who wouldn't want to be steps from downtown rather than landing in the arse end Mississauga?

They won't get 1500nm with that runway. That 1500nm is based on LCY's runway which is 1000 ft longer. So if I had to totally WAG it, I'd say maybe 1200nm from YTZ. That would exclude YEG and YYC but include a lot of the USA.

Quoting yowza (Reply 25):
I wonder how they are going to get that no jets policy overturned.

I doubt they'll be able to. Nice to dream though...

Quoting Noise (Reply 22):
How does their product compare to AC's or WS's proposed premium economy cabin?

Porter has 34" pitch. AC's Rouge Plus won't come close and Premium Economy is only offered on long-haul. AC doesn't offer anything other than Y and J on short-haul North America and its Y product has been steadily deteriorating. WS will offer 36" in its Y+ offering. But that The only downside to PD's Q400 is the narrow seat width. If Porter configures its CS100 with 100 seats in 20 rows, then it will be able to offer 34" pitch, class leading seat-width and more overhead luggage space per passenger. Basically the CSeries could allow PD to offer a product just under that of AC and WS premium economy offerings and still do it at Y prices.

Air Canada's and Westjet's nightmare would be the rest of Canada finding out about Porter's service. Though to be fair, Porter's service has declined a little. I flew on a flight a month after launch and remember getting a whole quesadilla in my snack box. Last year when I flew Porter, I got something like 1/4 of a quesadilla. I wish they'd stop the cost cutting to that chintzy a level. Still better than AC or WS though....

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YXD172
Posted 2013-04-09 11:53:42 and read 21215 times.

Regardless of operational limits into YTZ, does anyone know if there would even be space for the CSeries at the existing facilities? I was under the impression that the new terminal is operating close to capacity most of the time (at least the domestic side is, since the flights to YQT and YSB have to use the US departures lounge). The CS100's wingspan is 7m greater than the Q400's, and the fuselage is 2m longer.

From what I can tell, there isn't much room for expansion on the island unless they tear down some of the hangars.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: voodoo
Posted 2013-04-09 11:55:46 and read 21223 times.

Quoting YTZ" class="quote" target="_blank">YTZ (Reply 33):
They won't get 1500nm with that runway. That 1500nm is based on LCY's runway which is 1000 ft longer.

Looks to me like LCY is just 100m longer

LCY: Runway Length 27/09: 1319m x 30m wide.

YTZ: Runway length 08/26: 1219m x 46m wide

I am not sure if the Dartford Bridge (09 departures) or Canary Wharf affects things.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: flyyul
Posted 2013-04-09 11:56:10 and read 21168 times.

Yet again - severely doubt that this aircraft is meant for YTZ. Porter has been musing about more robust bases at Ottawa, Montreal, Halifax for quite some time.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: queb
Posted 2013-04-09 12:10:18 and read 20960 times.

Quoting voodoo (Reply 35):
Looks to me like LCY is just 100m longer

LCY: Runway Length 27/09: 1319m x 30m wide.

YTZ: Runway length 08/26: 1219m x 46m wide

LCY runway lenght is 1508 m but only 1199 m is usable

http://www.londoncityairport.com/con...f/London_City_Airport_Brochure.pdf

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YTZ
Posted 2013-04-09 12:30:28 and read 20625 times.

Quoting flyyul (Reply 36):
Yet again - severely doubt that this aircraft is meant for YTZ. Porter has been musing about more robust bases at Ottawa, Montreal, Halifax for quite some time.

Indeed. Oddly, I don't see why the CSeries is really required at these locations to start up their hubs. They could have done it with the Q400s.

On the other hand, out West the CSeries will definitely have some advantages.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: longhauler
Posted 2013-04-09 12:36:51 and read 20589 times.

I see this as the beginning of the end for Porter.

They presently are barely able to maintain a 55% load factor, and they go buying bigger aircraft. The result? 40% load factors?

Everyone talks about Porter's premium service levels, and they certainly do exist. But ... to date, no North American airline has been able to attract a higher paying Customer with better passenger service! It is fare and fare alone, especially if the rumours of a YHZ base are true ... probably the most price conscious market in Canada.

The thought of attracting a "business market" is again, not likely. In the past, no "new entrant" has ever been able to take "business traffic" from an incumbent. I remember hearing one of Westjet's executives state at an annual meeting when asked about trying to attract a "business traveler", he stated ... "A bomb scare couldn't get a businessman off of an Air Canada airplane!"

This will only add complications and expense to their operation. I think they are looking for a bailout. They get close to shutting down, then go to the Government for "help" after buying the "Canadian" airplane!

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: brilondon
Posted 2013-04-09 12:52:35 and read 20347 times.

Quoting YTZ" class="quote" target="_blank">YTZ (Reply 33):
Air Canada's and Westjet's nightmare would be the rest of Canada finding out about Porter's service. Though to be fair, Porter's service has declined a little. I flew on a flight a month after launch and remember getting a whole quesadilla in my snack box. Last year when I flew Porter, I got something like 1/4 of a quesadilla. I wish they'd stop the cost cutting to that chintzy a level. Still better than AC or WS though....

Yes, I find the same thing. I flew PD from EWR to YTZ last week, on my way back to YXU and have found their service to be less than what it was a couple of years ago.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 39):

I see this as the beginning of the end for Porter.

They presently are barely able to maintain a 55% load factor, and they go buying bigger aircraft. The result? 40% load factors?

Everyone talks about Porter's premium service levels, and they certainly do exist. But ... to date, no North American airline has been able to attract a higher paying Customer with better passenger service! It is fare and fare alone, especially if the rumours of a YHZ base are true ... probably the most price conscious market in Canada.

The thought of attracting a "business market" is again, not likely. In the past, no "new entrant" has ever been able to take "business traffic" from an incumbent. I remember hearing one of Westjet's executives state at an annual meeting when asked about trying to attract a "business traveler", he stated ... "A bomb scare couldn't get a businessman off of an Air Canada airplane!"

This will only add complications and expense to their operation. I think they are looking for a bailout. They get close to shutting down, then go to the Government for "help" after buying the "Canadian" airplane!

I don't think that they are that close to shutting down, but with these aircraft, it is hard to see what direction they may be realistically be taking without any real connections beyond their current markets.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-04-09 13:40:39 and read 19689 times.

Quoting YTZ" class="quote" target="_blank">YTZ (Reply 33):
Can an aircraft so configured actually accomplish that from a runway shorter than 4000ft?

Take off length for the CS100 at MTOW is less than 5000 ft, and that gets that maximum range of 2950nm. Billy Bishop's runway is 80% of what the CS100 needs for a MTOW takeoff so only having enough fuel for 1500nm should allow them at least close to a full cabin, taking off from a 4000' runway.

Quoting YTZ" class="quote" target="_blank">YTZ (Reply 33):
They won't get 1500nm with that runway. That 1500nm is based on LCY's runway which is 1000 ft longer. So if I had to totally WAG it, I'd say maybe 1200nm from YTZ. That would exclude YEG and YYC but include a lot of the USA.
Quoting queb (Reply 37):
LCY runway lenght is 1508 m but only 1199 m is usable

Almost exactly 4000'.

Quoting YTZ" class="quote" target="_blank">YTZ (Reply 33):
I doubt they'll be able to. Nice to dream though...

The same thing was said about Porter using Q400's at Bishop. It's a much different political environment now than in 1983 when the tripartite was signed.

Quoting YXD172 (Reply 34):
Regardless of operational limits into YTZ, does anyone know if there would even be space for the CSeries at the existing facilities?

That is probably a bigger consideration right now than runway length.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 39):
They presently are barely able to maintain a 55% load factor, and they go buying bigger aircraft. The result? 40% load factors?

Their 2012 load factor was 61%.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 40):
I don't think that they are that close to shutting down, but with these aircraft, it is hard to see what direction they may be realistically be taking without any real connections beyond their current markets.

If the worst happens, they might make a good acquisition target. WS might take a run at them if their price goes down.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: Kaiarahi
Posted 2013-04-09 13:49:55 and read 19537 times.

Thinking out loud here (probably shouldn't on a.net), but what if PD provided codeshare Canada/U.S. cnx for one or more ME airlines flying into YUL (AT, RJ, AH, QR)? Or Canadian cnx for AF/KL? Codeshares are allowed under all the applicable bilaterals.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: yowza
Posted 2013-04-09 13:57:17 and read 19433 times.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 42):
Thinking out loud here (probably shouldn't on a.net), but what if PD provided codeshare Canada/U.S. cnx for one or more ME airlines flying into YUL (AT, RJ, AH, QR)? Or Canadian cnx for AF/KL? Codeshares are allowed under all the applicable bilaterals.

I'm not sure I understand what the C series has with their ability to sign codeshares... AF/KL would be an attractive partner. PD already has interline agreements with:
- QR which gives them feed from both YUL and IAD
- SA which gives them feed at IAD
- SQ thorugh EWR


YOWza

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: 9252fly
Posted 2013-04-09 13:59:14 and read 19433 times.

With the twice failed attempt at an IPO, one has to wonder what Deluce is up to? The sense I get is that PD has for the most part tapped-out the markets from YTZ, it's only going to get worse within a few years once WS starts moving their DH4's out east. I'm not trying to say I don't want them to exist or be successful,it's just I don't see the AC or WS not reacting to PD if and when they indeed decide to compete using the CSeries. Exciting times ahead in Canadian aviation!

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: Kaiarahi
Posted 2013-04-09 14:01:44 and read 19400 times.

Quoting yowza (Reply 43):
I'm not sure I understand what the C series has with their ability to sign codeshares...

They could base a significant portion of the fleet at YUL, rather than YTZ, if their codeshares were with ME airlines and or KL/AF.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: infiniti329
Posted 2013-04-09 14:05:17 and read 19356 times.

Is PD the mysterious launch customer? At present there are three undisclosed customers all of whom ordered the CS100

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YTZ
Posted 2013-04-09 14:07:33 and read 19357 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 39):
I see this as the beginning of the end for Porter.

But then, one would expect an Air Canada pilot to say that. Your argument would hold true if somehow they were pushing to base these aircraft at YTZ. But if they are basing them elsewhere, they would presumably be pursuing new markets.

What if PD starts operating out of YUL to many US cities and the Carribean? I highly doubt that price-sensitive travellers from Toronto or Halifax would mind a little bit of backtracking.

Or what if PD decides to launch an entirely distinct operation out West?

Personally, I think PD could do well by setting up bases at YUL. This would reduce pressure on YTZ and make it a more focused operation, dedicated to Toronto O/D traffic, leaving Porter to grow new markets elsewhere. For example, I'm sure PD could effectively employ a CS100 and make a profit on routes AC hasn't touched, like YUL-SFO. Or where service is scant. Like YUL-YYC.

Or maybe even using YOW as a rather low-cost national hub (gotta be cheaper than operating from YYZ or YUL). After all, you are bound to get at least some o/d traffic on every flight to the nation's capital. Or YWG as an East-West connector. Low cost hub. Low cost aircraft. Higher service. It might just work. They just have to get the waves right to reduce connecting times.

I do think there's room for them to grow. YYZ is not the only place viable to support an airline in Canada.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YYCSpotter
Posted 2013-04-09 14:21:38 and read 19160 times.

Quoting YYZYYT (Reply 21):
Targeting premium passengers traveling between YHZ, YUL, YYT, YOW, etc...

What premium passengers? the majority of canada's premium traffic is out of YYZ, YYC primarily, and YUL and YVR as more minor hubs.

Quoting YXD172 (Reply 34):
From what I can tell, there isn't much room for expansion on the island unless they tear down some of the hangars.

They may have to cannibalize their FBO first to do that

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: Kaiarahi
Posted 2013-04-09 14:23:49 and read 19113 times.

Does anyone know what became of Deluce's lawsuit against AC for revoking his travel privileges?

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: infiniti329
Posted 2013-04-09 14:26:48 and read 19049 times.

Quoting YYCSpotter (Reply 48):
Quoting YXD172 (Reply 34):
From what I can tell, there isn't much room for expansion on the island unless they tear down some of the hangars.

They may have to cannibalize their FBO first to do that

Or they can move their hangars to other side of the airport, near runway 24/06.. There is decent space over there

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YTZ
Posted 2013-04-09 14:27:22 and read 19066 times.

Quoting YXD172 (Reply 34):
Regardless of operational limits into YTZ, does anyone know if there would even be space for the CSeries at the existing facilities? I

This might sound out there, but imagine if PD could buy out many of the other operators at YTZ and expand the terminal even more. How would you build YTZ if it was to truly be a city-centre airport? After imagining that, start plotting to get there.

Quoting 9252fly (Reply 44):
The sense I get is that PD has for the most part tapped-out the markets from YTZ, it's only going to get worse within a few years once WS starts moving their DH4's out east.

Exactly why they have to plan their expansion. Compete or die.

Quoting 9252fly (Reply 44):
I'm not trying to say I don't want them to exist or be successful,it's just I don't see the AC or WS not reacting to PD if and when they indeed decide to compete using the CSeries.

AC competes by:
1) Lobbying politicians for protection or favoritism.
2) Capacity dumping to drive competitors out of business.

Neither seems to be working for them in their efforts to kill PD. But they'll keep trying. And they'll do their best to mimic whatever strategy Porter puts up (just like they did at YTZ). The key to PD's survival is to lock up the market on whatever they start up, just like they did at YTZ.

I don't think WS is as much of a direct threat yet, unless PD is looking to setup a hub out West. In the long run, this will undoubtedly impact fares.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: ezalpha
Posted 2013-04-09 14:32:46 and read 18748 times.

Quoting rampbro (Reply 14):
They'll have to move to Pearson and slug it out with the big guys, or accept their fate as a Toronto O&D carrier.

Or maybe they'll renovate something (or build new) at the north end of the airport and operate from there. Avoid T1 and T3 altogether. And the big guys that they don't connect with anyhow. I'd be first in line.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YTZ
Posted 2013-04-09 14:37:29 and read 18685 times.

Quoting ezalpha (Reply 52):
Or maybe they'll renovate something (or build new) at the north end of the airport and operate from there. Avoid T1 and T3 altogether. And the big guys that they don't connect with anyhow. I'd be first in line

I doubt they will do Pearson. Who would want to pay Pearson's ridiculously high charges?

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: longhauler
Posted 2013-04-09 14:46:50 and read 18632 times.

Quoting YTZ" class="quote" target="_blank">YTZ (Reply 47):
But then, one would expect an Air Canada pilot to say that. Your argument would hold true if somehow they were pushing to base these aircraft at YTZ. But if they are basing them elsewhere, they would presumably be pursuing new markets.

No, it is said as someone with an MBA in Aviation, and been watching the Canadian market for 40 years.

Quoting YTZ" class="quote" target="_blank">YTZ (Reply 51):
AC competes by:
1) Lobbying politicians for protection or favoritism.
2) Capacity dumping to drive competitors out of business.

And yet, AC gets very little favoritism from the government, in fact a lot feel the opposite is true. Where has AC "dumped" capacity? Looking back in history, the only time I can see that may have been capacity dumping would have been the mid 1990s in competing with CP.

Quoting YTZ" class="quote" target="_blank">YTZ (Reply 51):
And they'll do their best to mimic whatever strategy Porter puts up (just like they did at YTZ). The key to PD's survival is to lock up the market on whatever they start up, just like they did at YTZ.

Flying regional turboprops around the country has been around a lot longer than Porter, by about 50 years! I doubt very much AC is trying to "mimic" Porter. AC does however match competition route by route. Which is why service is different on YYZ-LAX than YYZ-PHX.

Quoting YTZ" class="quote" target="_blank">YTZ (Reply 47):
For example, I'm sure PD could effectively employ a CS100 and make a profit on routes AC hasn't touched, like YUL-SFO. Or where service is scant. Like YUL-YYC.

AC has flown YUL-SFO many times, and will again. As far as YUL-YYC, when looking at both AC and WS schedules, I don't think "scant" describes it well.

Bottom line is that right now in aviation, airlines know exactly how many people want to fly from A to B every day. Access to numbers of which we can only dream. If the market is there, an aircraft will be flown ... by either AC or WS. I really can't see any market that actually exists, where it is not flown.

Some wonder whether there is room for 2 large airlines in Canada, let alone 3. Look at Wardair. Service, never before seen and unlikely to be seen again, fares below both AC and CP. New aircraft, competing schedules ... and got its tail handed to it on a silver platter!

Like some have mused above ... I wonder what Deluce is up to, as it sure eludes me!

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: brilondon
Posted 2013-04-09 14:54:32 and read 18473 times.

Quoting ezalpha (Reply 52):
Or maybe they'll renovate something (or build new) at the north end of the airport and operate from there. Avoid T1 and T3 altogether. And the big guys that they don't connect with anyhow. I'd be first in line.

Why would they go to that expense when they could use the terminal at YHM which I am sure they would get access to in heartbeat, as well as much lower cost to them if they needed an airport which would allow them to use the C-Series without penalty and be able to expand to other markets as well. The only kicker would be the travel to Toronto for the passengers.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: longhauler
Posted 2013-04-09 15:09:09 and read 18370 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 53):
I doubt they will do Pearson. Who would want to pay Pearson's ridiculously high charges?

With high charges, also comes high yields. Look at Westjet. They announced that when they moved the majority of their Ontario operations from YHM to YYZ, yields went up almost 50% overnight.

If you want to compete with McDonald's, you don't hide from them on some cheap side street, you set up shop right across the street from them. If you want their market, you have to offer their convenience.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 55):
Why would they go to that expense when they could use the terminal at YHM

The terminal at YHM is a gem, and very very user friendly. It is a mystery to me why no airline is very successful there, but many many airlines have tried ... and pulled out.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YTZ
Posted 2013-04-09 15:10:23 and read 18320 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 54):
And yet, AC gets very little favoritism from the government, in fact a lot feel the opposite is true.

How many other non-public entities can have the government pass back-to-work legislation or exempt from legally mandated pension contributions?

If Westjet employees went on strike tomorrow would MPs be rushing back to pass back-to-work legislation?

Quoting longhauler (Reply 54):
Where has AC "dumped" capacity?

Killing off City Express comes to mind.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 54):
AC has flown YUL-SFO many times, and will again.

When somebody else decides to run that service....

Quoting longhauler (Reply 54):
Bottom line is that right now in aviation, airlines know exactly how many people want to fly from A to B every day. Access to numbers of which we can only dream. If the market is there, an aircraft will be flown ... by either AC or WS. I really can't see any market that actually exists, where it is not flown.

Uggh. Ah yes. Canada doesn't need any more competition.

If you are going to argue that airlines have great data on who wants to fly where, can you not also be open to the possibility that Deluce and company have studied the same and reached the conclusion that they can make a go of it?

In any event, whether this move makes or breaks Porter, at least we can enjoy a few more years of good service. But I have many doubts that Deluce is pursuing this without having done his homework.

[Edited 2013-04-09 15:12:12]

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YTZ
Posted 2013-04-09 15:20:42 and read 18220 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 56):
With high charges, also comes high yields. Look at Westjet. They announced that when they moved the majority of their Ontario operations from YHM to YYZ, yields went up almost 50% overnight.

It never worked for Westjet because they were using YHM to funnel Toronto O/D traffic through an airport that is 70km away.

But if your goal (just an example) is to connect traffic and not necessarily use your hub as a major destination then the high costs of YYZ are not necessarily sensible.

Now I don't know what Deluce has in mind. I think of only two feasible options in the immediate term:

1) He's going to push for all the changes (infrastructure, regulation, etc.) required at YTZ. This would explain to me why it's an LOI. Bombardier will be lobbying the city and the feds hard to get this LOI converted to a firm order.

2) They are going for a new hub elsewhere.

We'll see which one it is very soon.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: longhauler
Posted 2013-04-09 15:23:49 and read 18196 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 57):
If Westjet employees went on strike tomorrow would MPs be rushing back to pass back-to-work legislation?

I wonder. It comes down to whether you think the Government is being honest in their intent. Westjet carries, what ... about 40% of the Canadian market? You don't think that would have an impact on Canadians?

Quoting YTZ (Reply 57):
Killing off City Express comes to mind.

And that was even before the example I used. More than 20 years ago!

Quoting YTZ (Reply 57):
When somebody else decides to run that service....

No one other than AC has ever flown YUL-SFO. It comes down to numbers. It is far cheaper to carry those passengers on a non-stop flight, than route them through YYZ. When numbers warrant, usually in summer, a non-stop is offered.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 57):
If you are going to argue that airlines have great data on who wants to fly where, can you not also be open to the possibility that Deluce and company have studied the same and reached the conclusion that they can make a go of it?

And that IS the question!

Does he have access to numbers no other airline or business does? That is unlikely. Does he think he can make a "go of it", I hope so, otherwise, what is his intent? From Austin Airways/Air Ontario to Canada 3000, it's not like he doesn't know the business!

If his Porter Airlines model is working. A big if, but an if nonetheless, why change it? That is why I wondered about the "health" of Porter. Why change something that is working, unless it is not working.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: multimark
Posted 2013-04-09 15:26:48 and read 18139 times.

Someone remind me, when was the last time Porter published financial results?   

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YTZ
Posted 2013-04-09 15:29:03 and read 18088 times.

Quoting multimark (Reply 60):
Someone remind me, when was the last time Porter published financial results?

Since when do privately held companies have to publish their financial results?

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: Dash9
Posted 2013-04-09 15:31:09 and read 18065 times.

The press conference was at noon, its been 6 hours, nothing has leaked out yet?

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-04-09 15:33:01 and read 18056 times.

Quoting Dash9 (Reply 62):

The press conference is for noon tomorrow.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: Dash9
Posted 2013-04-09 15:34:14 and read 18050 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 63):
The press conference is for noon tomorrow.

ha!!! that explains it! I'm dumb, I've been refreshing news sites all day waiting to know what it was all about...

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: Kaiarahi
Posted 2013-04-09 15:50:23 and read 17895 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 54):
I wonder what Deluce is up to, as it sure eludes me!

Not to mention Don Carty (Chair of the Board) and some pretty savvy Porter investors (Edgestone, OMERS, and GE Asset Management) - none of them naive.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YYZYYT
Posted 2013-04-09 15:52:42 and read 17888 times.

It's all over the evening news, head of residents group complaining that the airport is already over used, local councillor promising to fight any use of jet aircraft at the airport.... It begins again.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: ezalpha
Posted 2013-04-09 16:11:01 and read 17686 times.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 55):
The only kicker would be the travel to Toronto for the passengers.

Easy to see you don't live in the east end of Toronto. It takes me almost as long to get to the airport as it does to fly me from there to Florida. An extra hour to Hamilton? If I was going to drive that far, I'd keep right on going to Niagara Falls, NY and save more $$

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: yyz717
Posted 2013-04-09 16:14:58 and read 17622 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 54):
Bottom line is that right now in aviation, airlines know exactly how many people want to fly from A to B every day.

You're ignoring the stimulative effect of new, low cost service (the Southwest effect) that both WS and PD provide. AC Jazz could not make 5 daily YTZ flights work, but PD can make 105 daily nonstops from YTZ work.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 39):
I see this as the beginning of the end for Porter.

It's a departure but they need to grow and likely see limited new oppty's at YTZ. An order for 12 CS100's is really not that much additional capacity in the Cdn market. It would be the same as if WS ordered say 7 more 738's tomorrow -- no one would bat an eyelid.

Quoting YTZ" class="quote" target="_blank">YTZ (Reply 53):
Who would want to pay Pearson's ridiculously high charges?

Westjet for one, Canada's most successful carrier. YYZ could make sense for PD since the GTA is familiar with the brand.

Quoting YTZ" class="quote" target="_blank">YTZ (Reply 61):
Quoting multimark (Reply 60):
Someone remind me, when was the last time Porter published financial results?

Since when do privately held companies have to publish their financial results?

They do need to share their financials privately with whoever is financing their aircraft purchases. And they somehow managed to obtain financing for 26 Q400's. So if financing is secured for the 12 CS100's, then we can rest assured their financials are reasonably sound.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YXD172
Posted 2013-04-09 16:20:26 and read 17546 times.

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 50):

Or they can move their hangars to other side of the airport, near runway 24/06.. There is decent space over there

Looks like there's a decent amount of space, although they'd have to use the Hanlan's Point ferry for access since there's really no way around the runway. But I guess if they're spending a couple Billion on the aircraft, they can spend a few more million to rearrange YTZ.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: longhauler
Posted 2013-04-09 16:21:22 and read 17559 times.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 65):
Not to mention Don Carty (Chair of the Board) and some pretty savvy Porter investors (Edgestone, OMERS, and GE Asset Management) - none of them naive.

Sometimes the numbers defy themselves though, and in a board meeting they can convince themselves what would be successful will not be.

Look at Astoria Airlines. They were an all J class airline, with 5 star service flying between YYZ and YUL. They were offering J service at full Y fares. The same full Y fares that thousands were paying flying on Air Canada Rapidair and Canadian Shuttle every day.

The numbers indicated that they needed only 7 passengers a flight to cover direct operating costs, and 15 a flight to cover all costs. The aircraft held around 60 passengers. With thousands flying every day on CP and AC on that route, surely they could attract 7 a flight! And I am sure at the board meetings and planning sessions that is exactly what they thought.

Of course, we know what happened .... they didn't survive long. Not even 7 passengers a flight!

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: Skywatcher
Posted 2013-04-09 16:23:51 and read 17560 times.

Isn't the C series a "hub buster" among other things. The operating economics are very impressive as far as I've been led to believe. My take on this totally unexpected announcement is that this is only the first shoe to drop. There will be more "freaky" stuff to follow for sure. There are so many secondary cities in Canada that are currently only hooked up to major hubs such as YYZ (and YVR/YUL/YYC to a lessor extent) that the size/economic benefits of the C series may offer an entirely new way of dealing with moving around the numbers that everybody evidently has access to. Could this be the beginning of a game changer? I wouldn't be surprised if Bombardier is totally trying to create a buzz with this and gave PD great prices on the C series in order to try something drastically different and shake things up. I love it.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: longhauler
Posted 2013-04-09 16:31:12 and read 17453 times.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 68):
You're ignoring the stimulative effect of new, low cost service (the Southwest effect) that both WS and PD provide.

The "Southwest Effect" refers to low fares on previously unflown routes non-stop as opposed to flying through a hub, and presently both PD and WS do not offer lower fares than AC. For the Southwest Effect to apply, PD would have to offer substantially lower fares than WS or AC, or fly on a route now not flown ... a tough call, knowing that WS and AC will match fares on their connections.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 68):
t's a departure but they need to grow and likely see limited new oppty's at YTZ. An order for 12 CS100's is really not that much additional capacity in the Cdn market. It would be the same as if WS ordered say 7 more 738's tomorrow -- no one would bat an eyelid.

I agree.

But say Westjet never posted financial results, and failed an any IPO attempt. Then under the guise of success, they ordered 8 B777s. That would show a huge departure from what made them successful, I think quite a few people would notice!

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: longhauler
Posted 2013-04-09 16:36:02 and read 17395 times.

Quoting Skywatcher (Reply 71):
There are so many secondary cities in Canada that are currently only hooked up to major hubs such as YYZ (and YVR/YUL/YYC to a lessor extent) that the size/economic benefits of the C series may offer an entirely new way of dealing with moving around the numbers that everybody evidently has access to.

Possibly. But what cities in Canada, (or North America for that matter) would you hook up?

Remember UA/AC and WS/AA/DL know exactly how many people want to fly from A to B every day. Regional jets are pretty impressive with range these days with the E190 and the CRJ705. If there was a market unflown right now, that warranted a non-stop, it would be quite a surprise to AC/UA or WS/AA/DL!

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: yyz717
Posted 2013-04-09 16:54:38 and read 17140 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 72):
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 68):
You're ignoring the stimulative effect of new, low cost service (the Southwest effect) that both WS and PD provide.

The "Southwest Effect" refers to low fares on previously unflown routes non-stop as opposed to flying through a hub, and presently both PD and WS do not offer lower fares than AC. For the Southwest Effect to apply, PD would have to offer substantially lower fares than WS or AC, or fly on a route now not flown ... a tough call, knowing that WS and AC will match fares on their connections.

The Southwest effect is also new capacity and low fares on routes with current flights, not just unflown routes.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 73):
Remember UA/AC and WS/AA/DL know exactly how many people want to fly from A to B every day.

At the current fare levels, yet. But ignoring the stimulative effect of low fares and new competition.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YTZ
Posted 2013-04-09 17:01:56 and read 17081 times.

Quoting YYZYYT (Reply 66):
It's all over the evening news, head of residents group complaining that the airport is already over used, local councillor promising to fight any use of jet aircraft at the airport.... It begins again.

Here's the thing. They had an argument before Porter launched. It was flimsy. But people keep thinking that Miller got elected because of the bridge. I have my doubts. I doubt anybody outside old Toronto care about the bridge or the airport. But since PD launched, lots of 416 residents have discovered the convenience of flying from YTZ compared to the pain of getting to YYZ. And so it'll be very hard to for Olivia Chow to convince other 416 residents (other than her own constituents) that Porter should not be allowed to expand.

All that said, this mayor is not particularly popular at the moment and with this being a dicey issue, I doubt he has the political capital to push it through. So it will come down to convincing a majority of councillors to push this through.

Quoting ezalpha (Reply 67):
Easy to see you don't live in the east end of Toronto. It takes me almost as long to get to the airport as it does to fly me from there to Florida. An extra hour to Hamilton? If I was going to drive that far, I'd keep right on going to Niagara Falls, NY and save more $$

This. And to add to this, I can take the TTC from Scarborough to YTZ in about 1.5 hrs. And that holds true from just about anywhere in the 416. It will take me well over 2 hrs to take public transit to YYZ from Scarborough. The upcoming airport link isn't a solution either. It won't cut much off trips like mine and will add lots to the cost of getting to the airport.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 72):
But say Westjet never posted financial results, and failed an any IPO attempt. Then under the guise of success, they ordered 8 B777s. That would show a huge departure from what made them successful, I think quite a few people would notice!

Of course people would notice. But I would think that their investors and financiers would want to see their books and business plans before forking over the dough.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 70):
Of course, we know what happened .... they didn't survive long. Not even 7 passengers a flight!

Porter isn't Astoria. By this point, they most certainly have some name recognition. When I lived in Ottawa, every civil servant I knew would try to fly PD when travelling on business to Toronto. They would try pretty hard to get a PD flight within the fare rules provided.

Now undoubtedly expansion outside the TOM triangle is a risk. But you don't win if you don't try.

Quoting Skywatcher (Reply 71):
Isn't the C series a "hub buster" among other things.

Sure. But that's only a useful characteristic if PD is going to follow the LCC model of connecting city-pairs and not offering through connections. Or PD can use those low costs to simply run a cheaper and more efficient hub.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: UA787DEN
Posted 2013-04-09 17:09:41 and read 17032 times.

My guess is that the C-series planes will be spread out.
1) YHZ-YUL/YOW and other cities in the sort of central Canadian population belt.
2) YUL/YOW-Slighly Longer range cities in the area, or high-capacity cities. YUL-YOW perhaps.
3) Due to freeing up Turboprops, I forsee extra expansion from YTZ and YOW especially. YQB?
4) YUL becomes vacation/international mini-hub, with flights to the US, especially Florida. This gives reason to upgrades to other cities. YYT-YUL?
5) The west. Obviously, YUL/YOW-Major western cities (YYC, YVR, YEG.) Perchance a few Turboprops to smaller cities: YYJ, YLW Possibly, some middle-western cities too (YXE, YYG, YQR).
6) International flights from new/expanded cities.

I don't see all of these happening. These are just possible ideas of mine.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 72):
previously unflown routes non-stop

Actually, it doesn't have to be previously unflown. It just is bypassing major hubs from a smaller city in the WN network to get rid of a monopoly or provide a new service, lowering fares.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 73):
Regional jets are pretty impressive

I agree with your sentiment. However, the C-series is a bit larger. Upgrading routes that it would be unprofitable to do on a 737/320 could work.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YTZ
Posted 2013-04-09 17:44:16 and read 16718 times.

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 76):
1) YHZ-YUL/YOW and other cities in the sort of central Canadian population belt.

The CS100 won't add much here.

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 76):
YUL-YOW perhaps.

2hrs driving distance apart. CS100 would be extreme overkill. AF-KLM and LH-LX provide shuttle bus service from YOW to YUL instead of flying customers over.

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 76):
3) Due to freeing up Turboprops, I forsee extra expansion from YTZ and YOW especially. YQB?
4) YUL becomes vacation/international mini-hub, with flights to the US, especially Florida. This gives reason to upgrades to other cities. YYT-YUL?

Some limits on this idea. Sure, it might make sense to move some Sun traffic via YUL. But I doubt the case for moving traffic to BOS, EWR, MDW, etc. away from Toronto.

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 76):
5) The west. Obviously, YUL/YOW-Major western cities (YYC, YVR, YEG.) Perchance a few Turboprops to smaller cities: YYJ, YLW Possibly, some middle-western cities too (YXE, YYG, YQR).

Going up against WS would be pretty tough out West. Just as they are launching Encore too. I could see it if PD decides not to focus on the intra-West market but decides to maybe use YWG as a sort of national scissor hub. Enable one-stop connections on routings like YLW-YYT (two-stop routing today) or YVR-YHZ (big with the Navy for example and only one 1-stop offering on WS, 2 stop offering on AC).

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 76):
I agree with your sentiment. However, the C-series is a bit larger. Upgrading routes that it would be unprofitable to do on a 737/320 could work.

This will be interesting to watch. What routes can it enable that WS and AC can't pursue with their regional carriers.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: infiniti329
Posted 2013-04-09 17:57:18 and read 16548 times.

Quoting YXD172 (Reply 69):
Looks like there's a decent amount of space, although they'd have to use the Hanlan's Point ferry for access since there's really no way around the runway. But I guess if they're spending a couple Billion on the aircraft, they can spend a few more million to rearrange YTZ.

I think a shuttle bus from one side to the next would be more appropriate, less headaches

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: yyz717
Posted 2013-04-09 17:57:48 and read 16580 times.

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 76):
My guess is that the C-series planes will be spread out.
1) YHZ-YUL/YOW and other cities in the sort of central Canadian population belt.
2) YUL/YOW-Slighly Longer range cities in the area, or high-capacity cities. YUL-YOW perhaps.
3) Due to freeing up Turboprops, I forsee extra expansion from YTZ and YOW especially. YQB?
4) YUL becomes vacation/international mini-hub, with flights to the US, especially Florida. This gives reason to upgrades to other cities. YYT-YUL?
5) The west. Obviously, YUL/YOW-Major western cities (YYC, YVR, YEG.) Perchance a few Turboprops to smaller cities: YYJ, YLW Possibly, some middle-western cities too (YXE, YYG, YQR).
6) International flights from new/expanded cities.

I don't see all of these happening. These are just possible ideas of mine.

There are so many oppty's. My money is actually on YYZ. I can see PD YYZ flights complementing the YTZ hub:
1. GTA is a huge market -- PD can offer flights from YYZ to new markets without hurting the YTZ hub. The best opportunities for expansion remain at YYZ rather than any other market.
2. The PD brand is established throughout the GTA and many GTA suburbanites who don't fly PD now only do so b/c YTZ is not convenient. But YYZ would be convenient.....

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: UA787DEN
Posted 2013-04-09 18:09:47 and read 16456 times.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 79):
There are so many oppty's. My money is actually on YYZ. I can see PD YYZ flights complementing the YTZ hub:

If it wasn't for the insane fees, I would agree. I would love to see YYZ flights, even YTZ-YYZ for connections. But I don't think that two hubs in the same city and high fees fit PD's plan.

Now, Porter, go prove me wrong. *crosses fingers*

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: planemaker
Posted 2013-04-09 19:16:00 and read 15923 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 75):
All that said, this mayor is not particularly popular at the moment and with this being a dicey issue, I doubt he has the political capital to push it through. So it will come down to convincing a majority of councillors to push this through.

The city is only one party to the Tripartite Agreement of 1993 that runs to 2033. The Federal Government and the Toronto Harbour Commission would also have to agree to any change that would revoke the jet ban to Toronto Island. And that is the first hurdle. As someone posted earlier, the residents near the airport not only don't want jets, they don't want the airport - period. And allowing pax jets opens a can of worms... charter operators would want to fly in to p/u or drop off pax.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YTZ
Posted 2013-04-09 19:26:59 and read 15808 times.

Looking at the local news and the fact that it's an LOI that gives them an out, it seems to me they are going for broke on this one and will push to allow jets at YTZ. They may not have a better opportunity with this mayor and this government lined up.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: Noise
Posted 2013-04-09 19:32:45 and read 15747 times.

Quoting YTZ" class="quote" target="_blank">YTZ (Reply 82):
Looking at the local news and the fact that it's an LOI that gives them an out, it seems to me they are going for broke on this one and will push to allow jets at YTZ. They may not have a better opportunity with this mayor and this government lined up.

And if they fail? They must have plan B.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: planemaker
Posted 2013-04-09 19:43:22 and read 15720 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 82):
it seems to me they are going for broke

Maybe they are going (for) broke.  
Quote:
The recent surge in demand for air travel in Canada appears to be leaving Porter Airlines Inc. behind, with traffic falling precipitously at the Toronto Island-based airline while its rivals consistently report record months of filling their planes.

Although he reports that Deluce said that Porter made a profit in 2012, it seems that this journalist is a Porter sceptic.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: StarAC17
Posted 2013-04-09 19:47:02 and read 15652 times.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 55):
Why would they go to that expense when they could use the terminal at YHM which I am sure they would get access to in heartbeat, as well as much lower cost to them if they needed an airport which would allow them to use the C-Series without penalty and be able to expand to other markets as well. The only kicker would be the travel to Toronto for the passengers.

PD's competitive advantage is YTZ and attracting their traffic from the downtown core that want to avoid YYZ. Moving to YHM wouldn't generate bubcus for them as WS realized and moved to YYZ. Hi-yielding traffic doesn't want to travel far and PD's competitive advantage is a attracting the niche market.

Quoting YTZ" class="quote" target="_blank">YTZ (Reply 57):
If Westjet employees went on strike tomorrow would MPs be rushing back to pass back-to-work legislation?

They are non-union so that point is moot and there is no such thing as a strike in WS's case. They could in theory fire anyone who walked off the job in a heartbeat.

Quoting YTZ" class="quote" target="_blank">YTZ (Reply 61):
Quoting multimark (Reply 60):
Someone remind me, when was the last time Porter published financial results?

Since when do privately held companies have to publish their financial results?

We don't have to know but their investors sure do, PD could be raking it in and because of the fact they are growing they either have investors that have huge balls or they are in fact well in the black.

Quoting YTZ" class="quote" target="_blank">YTZ (Reply 75):
Of course people would notice. But I would think that their investors and financiers would want to see their books and business plans before forking over the dough.

They do and will do some serious due diligence before handing over cash to PD.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-04-09 20:05:08 and read 15500 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 70):

Of course, we know what happened .... they didn't survive long. Not even 7 passengers a flight!

Porter is obviously having more success since they averaged a 61% load factor for 2012.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 84):

Although he reports that Deluce said that Porter made a profit in 2012, it seems that this journalist is a Porter sceptic.

Sceptic? He's actually very even handed. On one hand, he reports a drop in load factors for the first part of '13, and on the other, he mentions that Porter only needs 50% to make a profit and they have a much lower cost structure than AC or WS. As well, he writes about Porters on time record beats both as does its satisfaction ratings with passengers.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: flyyul
Posted 2013-04-09 20:50:36 and read 15182 times.

I can't see Porter wanting to go up against giants in Air Canada/WestJet at Toronto Pearson.

Porter would never be able to build any scale to effectively compete. Plus the YYZ local market is quite well served when there's 25+ direct flights per day from YYZ to YYC/YVR/YEG/YUL in high season

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: Noise
Posted 2013-04-09 21:11:52 and read 15031 times.

Quoting flyyul (Reply 87):

I can't see Porter wanting to go up against giants in Air Canada/WestJet at Toronto Pearson.

Porter would never be able to build any scale to effectively compete. Plus the YYZ local market is quite well served when there's 25+ direct flights per day from YYZ to YYC/YVR/YEG/YUL in high season

Wouldn't you say though that PD would also being going up against those very same airlines if they base those aircrafts in YUL, YOW or YHZ? Or perhaps even a Western destination?

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: flyyul
Posted 2013-04-09 21:21:09 and read 15010 times.

Quoting Noise (Reply 88):
Wouldn't you say though that PD would also being going up against those very same airlines if they base those aircrafts in YUL, YOW or YHZ? Or perhaps even a Western destination?

Not to the same extent. How would Porter compete with Air Canada on Toronto-Vancouver where there's 20+ flights a day? Porter's unique selling feature was the Island, now that's no longer valid with the Pearson option. Porter's base is the downtown Toronto crowd - but the downtown Toronto crowd are also Frequent flyers and generally loyal to Air Canada ex. Pearson.

In a market like Ottawa, they could in theory exploit niche opportunities with a low cost airplane like the CS100 to markets like Winnipeg, Edmonton, Vancouver, Fort Lauderdale, New York La Guardia etc... Montreal is a bit more competitive however but there's some niche opportunities as the market is nowhere near competitive as Toronto.


Deluce has gone on the record saying he wanted more robust bases in Ottawa and Montreal. Part of the reason he hasn't yet done so is to maximize all the available slots at YTZ in an effort to prevent Air Canada and others from establishing themselves.



Nobody quite knows what Porter is up to with the CSeries.. but competing at Pearson is near suicidal move without the critical mass connection feed both AC and WS has built up there. History hasn't been on the side of the "3rd carrier" at Pearson (i.e. JetsGo, Canada 3000, Royal etc etc)

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YTZ
Posted 2013-04-09 21:43:09 and read 14849 times.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 85):
They are non-union so that point is moot and there is no such thing as a strike in WS's case. They could in theory fire anyone who walked off the job in a heartbeat.

.

Moot point perhaps but a very relevant hypothetical. What makes AC so special? Why isn't Parliament being recalled to pass back to work legislation for PD's striking refuellers? Oh, is it about marketshare? So basically if your company is too big to fail, the government will move heaven and earth to make business even easier.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 85):
We don't have to know but their investors sure do

Right. And that's why I find doubts about Porter to be somewhat funny. Presumably, the people that need to know about Porter's finances and business plans do. Yet, somehow armchair CEOs everywhere seem to think Porter's staff and those of their investors are not competent to do basic SWOT analysis.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YYZYYT
Posted 2013-04-10 04:30:14 and read 13242 times.

Quoting YTZ" class="quote" target="_blank">YTZ (Reply 75):
This. And to add to this, I can take the TTC from Scarborough to YTZ in about 1.5 hrs. And that holds true from just about anywhere in the 416. It will take me well over 2 hrs to take public transit to YYZ from Scarborough. The upcoming airport link isn't a solution either. It won't cut much off trips like mine and will add lots to the cost of getting to the airport.

While I generally agree with your thoughts in this thread, I think this one misses the point - who takes public transit to the airport?

I lived in downtown/west for years, but now live in the 905 belt (Dundas). But I still work downtown.

I loved YTZ when I lived downtown, and still do when I am travelling to or from the office. But when I start from my home, YYZ is quicker and easier to get to (given the convergence of Highways, 401, 403, 407, 410, 427), rather than fighting my way downtown where traffic is always slow, right down to the Bathurst St. extension area (which is a traffic flow nightmare). And I can park at YYZ (unlike YTZ).

The reality is that if you live to the north or west of the City, or anywhere than the downtown core, YYZ is a much more convenient airport.

Quoting flyyul (Reply 89):
Not to the same extent. How would Porter compete with Air Canada on Toronto-Vancouver where there's 20 flights a day? Porter's unique selling feature was the Island, now that's no longer valid with the Pearson option. Porter's base is the downtown Toronto crowd - but the downtown Toronto crowd are also Frequent flyers and generally loyal to Air Canada ex. Pearson

Dead on - People travelling to or from the downtown core love YTZ. I deal with people who come into Toronto for a day or a few days on a regular basis. I can't remember the last time that I met someone who was coming into to Toronto for a meeting or event via YYZ. Always YTZ, and usually Porter.

Quoting flyyul (Reply 87):
I can't see Porter wanting to go up against giants in Air Canada/WestJet at Toronto Pearson.

Yes, good idea, take on AC on the YYZ-YUL route... guaranteed path to success. Just ask Wardair, Royal, Jetsgo...

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: yyz717
Posted 2013-04-10 05:09:14 and read 13008 times.

Quoting flyyul (Reply 89):
History hasn't been on the side of the "3rd carrier" at Pearson (i.e. JetsGo, Canada 3000, Royal etc etc)

History is not even on the side of the "1st carrier" at Pearson. AC has lost money for most of its existence and continues to generate less than investment grade returns. So your point is? The fact is that air travel is a commodity and the spoils go the the low cost provider. That's why smaller WS is more profitable than larger AC, and that's why much smaller PD could be profitable at YYZ.

Quoting flyyul (Reply 87):
I can't see Porter wanting to go up against giants in Air Canada/WestJet at Toronto Pearson.

WS did it less than 10 years ago entering YYZ with just 4 dailies. Now it's a profitable giant. There is no reason why PD cannot repeat the same. AC is a weak competitor despite its size -- high costs and an incompetent management team.

Quoting flyyul (Reply 87):
Porter would never be able to build any scale to effectively compete.

This shows how little some people know about the airline industry. PD does not need scale to compete, at least not initially. It simply needs to start slowly in YYZ and add capacity in a logical step making money along the way, while maintaining lower costs than the weak cost player (AC). Just like WS did a few years ago.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: ezalpha
Posted 2013-04-10 05:43:58 and read 12750 times.

Quoting YYZYYT (Reply 91):
While I generally agree with your thoughts in this thread, I think this one misses the point - who takes public transit to the airport?
Quoting YYZYYT (Reply 91):
The reality is that if you live to the north or west of the City, or anywhere than the downtown core, YYZ is a much more convenient airport.

I don't know what to make of these comments. Toronto is over 100 miles across. If you live in the west end, as YYZYYT does, you're laughing. If you live anywhere in the east end of the city, you're beat. Until Porter came along. I went to Chicago last fall, and Boston the year before. I got on a GO bus right beside my house in Brooklin, then a GO train to downtown Toronto and Porter picked me up, put me on the plane. Never took my car out of the garage! Try doing that from Pearson. I shouldn't even say that, I work here. My wife loves Porter, and she couldn't care less about airports or airplanes. Fact is, the whole east side of Toronto might as well not exist. Its a nightmare getting to Pear there for a morning flight and the parking costs just add insult to injury.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-04-10 05:50:06 and read 12714 times.

I was amused to see all the dissection of Porter. Bombardier is pursuing the right strategy. Get their planes into as many airlines as possible and some will make top off orders.   

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 92):
. AC is a weak competitor despite its size -- high costs and an incompetent management team.

And not very flexible in terms of route planning... That is where Porter has their best option.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: multimark
Posted 2013-04-10 07:01:22 and read 12247 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 61):
Since when do privately held companies have to publish their financial results?

Yes, that's quite convenient, isn't it? And every industry watcher remembers what a debacle their first aborted IPO attempt was. And their load factors are bad, and getting worse.

It amazes me that anybody takes this attempt by PD seriously.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: longhauler
Posted 2013-04-10 07:10:44 and read 12206 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 86):
Porter is obviously having more success since they averaged a 61% load factor for 2012.

And Astoria would have had greater success if they been able to remove competition from YYZ-YUL, like Porter was able to do out of YTZ. If Porter moves a base into YYZ, (or YOW, YUL, YYC, YHZ, etc) they wont have that luxury.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 92):
History is not even on the side of the "1st carrier" at Pearson.

Except that its still here, unlike all of the 3rd entries mentioned.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 92):
and that's why much smaller PD could be profitable at YYZ.

Could be yes. And there is brand recognition in the YYZ area. However, what will PD offer the public that WS and AC are not? And good service doesn't count, as time and time has shown, people wont pay for it. They only edge they might have is price, but I am going to assume WS and AC will match anything PD comes up with.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 94):
And not very flexible in terms of route planning... That is where Porter has their best option.

AC is not flexible in route planning??? How do you figure? Routes at AC are changing all the time, as market adjusts and competition moves. And these plans/moves are made on actual numbers not, "my nephew's, girlfriend's hairdresser's son says the LAX flight is always empty!"

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: airbuscanada
Posted 2013-04-10 07:14:47 and read 12199 times.

From an internal source at Bombardier:
Announcement not important itself as orders would be already part of total commitments that BBD has received (LOI from an undisclosed customer) so no change unless it is a firm order which we doubt.
However, it could be more positive than some people thought because it might force Air Canada to the same and order the Cseriesm Big question mark will be financing for those planes as well as addititonal runway to be built, other slots to be given to other carriers and breaking rule that do not allow to fly jets until 2033.

Big positive is that Cseries is 4x quieter and that you only need to extend tarmac by about 400 feet. Market was not expecting any order before the Paris Airshow so positive and might force some airlines that were sitting on the sidelines to more closely look at the aircraft as slots will be filling in. So yes might be snowball effect. Someting to watch is depending on portern,s configuration, we could even believe that it could perform international flights out of Toronto so would be agame changer.
Both the A320 abd B737 need at least XX feet o frunway so impossible to fly out of Toromto island so assuming AC or WJA goes out from there, would absolutelt need CSeriesm watch out today for stock reaction on both AC and Wja. Will helkp you to determime whether porter plan has some credibility. Airlines getting more disciplined and aIr canda outlook for credit rating just got upgrade to positive as well as load factors to new record levels.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: longhauler
Posted 2013-04-10 07:22:36 and read 12165 times.

Quoting airbuscanada (Reply 97):
However, it could be more positive than some people thought because it might force Air Canada to the same and order the Cseries

If you read between the lines at AC's announcements, it looks like the CSeries is being strongly considered, but not anytime soon.

It has been stated that the E190 will stay until 2020. In AC's narrow body plans, it is mentioned that in addition to the A320 series replacement, another "smaller efficient niche type aircraft" would replace the E190s. So unless Embraer comes up with something new, it seems to indicate the CSeries.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: brilondon
Posted 2013-04-10 07:33:28 and read 12090 times.

If they stay at the YTZ location for their base and use this as their major selling point, then once the fixed rail link comes on line in a couple of years, that would almost negate the location of YTZ. Why would you go to YTZ when you could get to YYZ in what they want in about 25 minutes. It takes about that long to get to YTZ from downtown in their crappy traffic situation. No major road links or rapid transit to directly linking them to the core of Toronto. I know that the real reason YYZ is a crappy airport is not just the links to downtown but also the high fees that they charge.

Once Metrolinx is in full operation would PD then want to locate to YYZ as their operational base because it would seem that the rapid transit line would take a certain percentage of people to YYZ that could push PD into a situation where they can't afford to just be at YTZ. Here is a link to the Metrolinx site; http://www.metrolinx.com/en/

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: sirtoby
Posted 2013-04-10 07:43:14 and read 12007 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 98):
So unless Embraer comes up with something new

They will come with the E190G2, having the same engine as the CSeries...

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: flyyul
Posted 2013-04-10 07:43:19 and read 12030 times.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 92):
This shows how little some people know about the airline industry. PD does not need scale to compete, at least not initially. It simply needs to start slowly in WS did a few years ago.

I forgot that you're the so-called airline expert all of a sudden. Simply look at the market demand from Toronto to Domestic Markets, and see how much capacity is flown in/out vs. local market demand. From a local perspective I bet capacity to demand ratio is in excess of 5:1. Whereas Porter has no feed at Pearson, WestJet/Air Canada would have much larger feed opportunities to backfill any loss of local market share to Porter.

This is why Porter could entertain an interesting hub-busting opportunity in secondary stations like Ottawa and perhaps Halifax/Montreal to a lesser extent. Although market demand is much lower, a significant amount of local traffic flows through AC/WS to move assets away from Toronto to "compete".

This happens all over the US. Simply look at carriers hub busting the majors in the form of JetBlue, Southwest, Frontier etc.

For the record however, I don't believe that this model will prove profitable for Porter as the Canadian domestic market is quite well served in terms of capacity. However going to head to head with the big guys in Pearson is surely suicidal. WestJet has serious growth ambitions as well (only need to look at their fleet plan on the WS website)

[Edited 2013-04-10 07:45:27]

[Edited 2013-04-10 07:52:25]

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YTZ
Posted 2013-04-10 07:44:08 and read 12073 times.

Quoting YYZYYT (Reply 91):
who takes public transit to the airport?

Lots of people. If you've ever actually done it, you'd realize that its more common than you think. Especially to YTZ.

Quoting YYZYYT (Reply 91):
I loved YTZ when I lived downtown, and still do when I am travelling to or from the office. But when I start from my home, YYZ is quicker and easier to get to (given the convergence of Highways, 401, 403, 407, 410, 427), rather than fighting my way downtown where traffic is always slow, right down to the Bathurst St. extension area (which is a traffic flow nightmare). And I can park at YYZ (unlike YTZ).

1) Only if you want to drive to YYZ.
2) Try driving to YYZ from Scarborough or Pickering at rush hour to catch a flight. It is somethimes possible to reach YTZ 30 mins faster by GO train than it is to get to Pearson by car.
3) Parking at YYZ is an added unecessary expense when you can easily cab or take transit to YTZ.

Quoting YYZYYT (Reply 91):
The reality is that if you live to the north or west of the City, or anywhere than the downtown core, YYZ is a much more convenient airport.

Agreed. But there's nearly 3 million people that live east of YYZ. And 2.5 million of those can subway to the core. Even more can access YTZ by GO train. And that's not counting those with easy access to Lakeshore/Gardiner like if you live in South Mississauga. In which case, reaching YTZ is just as easy as reaching YYZ by car (though admittedly parking is more challenging).

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: challengerdan
Posted 2013-04-10 07:44:16 and read 12089 times.

According to the National Post, Porter would be adding Vancouver, Calgary, L.A, Miami and Orlando in 2016 when they get their Cseries...
http://business.financialpost.com/2013/04/10/porter-airlines-cseries/

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YTZ
Posted 2013-04-10 07:46:17 and read 12061 times.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 99):
If they stay at the YTZ location for their base and use this as their major selling point, then once the fixed rail link comes on line in a couple of years, that would almost negate the location of YTZ.

Nope. You should look up how much that link costs. And that link is of barely any utility for most travellers since you have to spend 1.5 hrs on other transit to intercept that link.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YXD172
Posted 2013-04-10 07:56:11 and read 12008 times.

Quoting challengerdan (Reply 103):
According to the National Post, Porter would be adding Vancouver, Calgary, L.A, Miami and Orlando in 2016 when they get their Cseries...

Also from that article: "Porter intends to seek relief on the jet restriction on Billy Bishop Toronto City airport and seek a 180-metre extension on either end of the runway to accommodate the CSeries requirement, a source said."

So I guess (according to this source) Porter intents to stick it out in YTZ. I guess we'll know soon for sure!

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: queb
Posted 2013-04-10 08:04:14 and read 12009 times.

BBD just confirmed the news.

12 CS100 + 18 options & 6 Q400 purchase rights

in french

http://static.ow.ly/docs/20130410_Po...%20Conditional%20Order_FR_1aLQ.pdf

[Edited 2013-04-10 08:07:12]

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: brilondon
Posted 2013-04-10 08:08:07 and read 11952 times.

Quoting YTZ" class="quote" target="_blank">YTZ (Reply 104):
Nope. You should look up how much that link costs. And that link is of barely any utility for most travellers since you have to spend 1.5 hrs on other transit to intercept that link.

You are wrong. You still have to get to YTZ from all those points you mentioned and I am basing my assertion on leaving DOWNTOWN Toronto. That is the market PD has always been after and they advertised the convenience of flying out of YTZ. How long does it take to drive and find a parking spot from Scarborough Town Centre to YTZ. Then factor in that cost of parking into your calculations.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: queb
Posted 2013-04-10 08:11:07 and read 11969 times.

English PR

http://www.newswire.ca/fr/story/1143...-spread-wings-across-north-america

Porter Airlines will shortly be requesting the tripartite parties consider two amendments that would allow the operation of the CS100 aircraft at Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport. The first consideration is permitting use of this model of jet aircraft, while the second consideration is a modest 168 meter extension into water at each end of the existing main runway. This can be accommodated without changes to existing marine boundaries.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: queb
Posted 2013-04-10 08:12:51 and read 11949 times.

107 seats one class config

https://www.porterplans.com/New-Planes#tab-4

[Edited 2013-04-10 08:14:03]

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: challengerdan
Posted 2013-04-10 08:17:20 and read 11933 times.

More details about Porter's plans of future destinations:
https://www.porterplans.com/

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: queb
Posted 2013-04-10 08:21:53 and read 11903 times.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: multimark
Posted 2013-04-10 08:28:10 and read 11852 times.

Quoting queb (Reply 108):
English PR

http://www.newswire.ca/fr/story/1143...-spread-wings-across-north-america

Porter Airlines will shortly be requesting the tripartite parties consider two amendments that would allow the operation of the CS100 aircraft at Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport. The first consideration is permitting use of this model of jet aircraft, while the second consideration is a modest 168 meter extension into water at each end of the existing main runway. This can be accommodated without changes to existing marine boundaries.

LOL, that amendment will come when Porter starts flying pigs.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: FighterPilot
Posted 2013-04-10 08:29:37 and read 11860 times.

It'll be interesting to see Porter and Westjet Encore evolve in the next few years.

Cal   

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: brilondon
Posted 2013-04-10 08:30:19 and read 11847 times.

Quoting queb (Reply 109):
www.porterplans.com/New-Planes#tab-4

Well I guess almost all of my previous statements are moot if the extension of the runway is allowed to go through. My question is what if the less than smart local government of Toronto does not pass the amendments to the present agreement but put up more barriers, does anyone know if there is contingency plan in place?

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: Paolo92
Posted 2013-04-10 08:38:09 and read 11832 times.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 114):

Well... as of Bombardier's press release the purchase agreement is conditional...
And I guess the condition is if the amendment gets approved...

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: queb
Posted 2013-04-10 08:39:50 and read 11873 times.

New potential routes

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YTZ
Posted 2013-04-10 08:58:44 and read 11771 times.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 107):
You still have to get to YTZ from all those points you mentioned and I am basing my assertion on leaving DOWNTOWN Toronto.

Exactly my point. The airport rail link really only helps you if you are going from Pearson to the core and vice versa. It doesn't really do much for the vast majority of us who don't live in the core. If I'm going to take the airport rail link and access it by subway, I might as well go to YTZ. The TTC costs $3. The airport rail link will cost $15. I'll spend $18 to get to Pearson in 1.5 hrs by transit from Scarborough, when I can spend $3 and get to YTZ in 1.5 hours.

The rail link will be great though for visitors to Toronto, most of who are destined for the core.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 107):
That is the market PD has always been after and they advertised the convenience of flying out of YTZ.

That convenience applies to a lot more than the downtown. If you are at an office at Yonge and Sheppard, you can subway down to YTZ in about 50 minutes door-to-door. Or take you 20 mins to drive door-to-door to YYZ. And then you still have to pay for parking and take the 9 minute LINK bus from the cheap lot (or pay a lot more). So you save about 20 minutes driving and pay $15 per day for that privilege.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 107):
How long does it take to drive and find a parking spot from Scarborough Town Centre to YTZ.

As per Google, from STC to YTZ by TTC is 1 hr 20 mins. And that's the key advantage of YTZ. If I am at STC, why am I driving and paying to store my car while I'm gone? I'll either be cabbing it, or more likely, I'll be hopping on the TTC.

Or I could take 23 minutes o drive to Pearson and then spend $15 per day or whatever it is to park there and then take the 9 minute Link bus shuttle because I used the cheap lot.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 107):
Then factor in that cost of parking into your calculations.

You should do the same. Round trip on the TTC cost me $6. How much parking time will I get at YYZ for that?

There are two key markets for YTZ. The downtown crowd that can cab cheaply or even walk to the station. And the whole eastern and northern half of the city that get there by subway. Some of you may be able to spend $15 per day on top of your air fare for a weekend get away or a business trip. But there's quite a few of us who'd rather spend that money in other ways.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: Aviaponcho
Posted 2013-04-10 09:00:11 and read 11790 times.

Yes
California is possible only with runway extension I guess...

Pax count is 107, a little less than standard two class layout / and one class layout...

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: slawko
Posted 2013-04-10 09:04:30 and read 11797 times.

Looks pretty Toronto-Centric to me... https://www.porterplans.com/New-Routes

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: yyz717
Posted 2013-04-10 09:21:44 and read 11731 times.

Quoting slawko (Reply 119):
Looks pretty Toronto-Centric to me...

More specifically YTZ centric Slawko. Toronto-centric is good.  

It puts immense pressure on the opening up & expansion of YTZ with Porter jobs and BBD jobs hanging in the balance as an inducement. Jobs vs tree huggers. A no-brainer to me.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: Dash9
Posted 2013-04-10 09:51:21 and read 11627 times.

Quoting queb (Reply 109):
107 seats one class config

Nope, their websites says dual class:
'a business class with 2x2 seating and more legroom, an economy class with 2x3 seating with wider seats'

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: queb
Posted 2013-04-10 10:31:10 and read 11437 times.

Quoting Dash9 (Reply 121):

Quoting queb (Reply 109):
107 seats one class config

Nope, their websites says dual class:
'a business class with 2x2 seating and more legroom, an economy class with 2x3 seating with wider seats'

you're right, my bad

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2013-04-10 10:45:04 and read 11443 times.

Well, this is very ambitious.

I can see from a business perspective that YVR/YYC/LAX straight into downtown Toronto could be extremely attractive. And avoiding the land transportation snarl saves a headache.

The politics will be interesting. I'd venture that the Feds have already given an implied green light on both issues. The Port Authority will be interesting. As for City Hall, if Ford had more credibility and political capital, he might be able to force it, but he has neither, so this will be for the aldermen to decide.

I hope it goes through.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: KarlB737
Posted 2013-04-10 11:26:51 and read 11302 times.

Quoting drgmobile (Thread starter):
The aircraft can NOT land at Billy Bishop user current rules.

Courtesy: Air Transport World

Porter Airlines To Order 12 Bombardier CSeries Aircraft

"Porter Airlines president and CEO Robert Deluce said the deal also includes purchase rights for six Bombardier Q400s. The aircraft will be used to expand its service to Vancouver, Calgary, Los Angeles, Calif., Miami and Orlando, Fla.

Deluce said the plan will require changes to Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport. The airline will seek permission to fly the CS100s out of the island airport, where the runway would need to be extended by 168 meters at each end. “We believe it is time to spread our wings,” Deluce said at the news conference."


http://atwonline.com/airframes/porte...der-12-bombardier-cseries-aircraft

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: antidote
Posted 2013-04-10 11:31:27 and read 11255 times.

Well, that pretty much hurls the cat among the pigeons! As several posts have noted, the political climate is quite different now. Good luck to them!

[Edited 2013-04-10 11:32:02]

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YTZ
Posted 2013-04-10 12:10:28 and read 11138 times.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 123):
Well, this is very ambitious.
Quoting antidote (Reply 125):
Well, that pretty much hurls the cat among the pigeons! As several posts have noted, the political climate is quite different now. Good luck to them!

There will never be a better time to try than with a Conservative government in Ottawa, a friendly TPA and a supportive mayor. The big mystery is the province which actually owns the airport land and who gets the land back in 2033.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 123):
As for City Hall, if Ford had more credibility and political capital, he might be able to force it, but he has neither,

Agreed. But he might still be able to convince some councillors to rally behind the proposal.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 123):
so this will be for the aldermen to decide.

A few downtown councillors will not be convinced. The key will be to target the suburban councilllors. Maybe some transit funding from the feds can grease the wheels?

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: m1m2
Posted 2013-04-10 14:04:14 and read 10778 times.

Assuming this hasn't been asked before as I didn't see it, what about weight penalties for flying from an "extended" runway at YTZ to the west coast? That's assuming they get the approvals they need to fly the C-Series to the island. Would they be able to carry full passengers, bags and enough fuel to get to YYC or even YVR?

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: yyz717
Posted 2013-04-10 14:13:48 and read 10738 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 126):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 123):
As for City Hall, if Ford had more credibility and political capital, he might be able to force it, but he has neither,

Agreed. But he might still be able to convince some councillors to rally behind the proposal.

A majority of counsellors supported the tunnel now under construction. These 22+ hence have demonstrated support of airport infrastructure improvement, if not expansion. He needs the same people aboard now for expansion. Presumably a straw poll has been done to assess that support leading up to this PR, and presumably it's in place.

Once PD has done the "heavy lifting" and get a runway extension and CS100 approval for YTZ (assuming it proceeds), AC and WS and others can benefit from the same enhanced YTZ capabilities also down the line. That is, AC CS100 service to follow PD down the line.

[Edited 2013-04-10 14:20:34]

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: Kaiarahi
Posted 2013-04-10 14:18:21 and read 10721 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 126):
There will never be a better time to try than with a Conservative government in Ottawa, a friendly TPA and a supportive mayor.

Not to mention Bombardier in Porter's corner. However, the TPA just issued this statement: "For the past 30 years, the TPA has operated the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport based upon the terms of the 1983 Tripartite Agreement, and will continue to do so. The TPA will not consider any change of use to the airport until a determination is first made by the elected representatives on Toronto City Council regarding Porter's proposed changes to the 1983 Tripartite Agreement."

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: Noise
Posted 2013-04-10 14:22:10 and read 10681 times.

I have to say, this is really good news for air travel in Canada IMO. It has the potential to bring fares down or to increase the quality of travel.

Does anybody know what the product will look like in Porter's 2 cabin configuration?

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: mesaflyguy
Posted 2013-04-10 14:28:01 and read 10650 times.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 92):
This shows how little some people know about the airline industry. PD does not need scale to compete, at least not initially. It simply needs to start slowly in YYZ and add capacity in a logical step making money along the way, while maintaining lower costs than the weak cost player (AC). Just like WS did a few years ago.

But, if PD did do this, they would going up against 2 carriers, vs just one. I don't think they could be as effective as WS was.

I'm glad to see that these aircraft will (hopefully) be baed at YTZ. Will be good for the airport and for PD.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: Bureaucromancer
Posted 2013-04-10 14:30:11 and read 10647 times.

Quoting m1m2 (Reply 127):

Assuming this hasn't been asked before as I didn't see it, what about weight penalties for flying from an "extended" runway at YTZ to the west coast? That's assuming they get the approvals they need to fly the C-Series to the island. Would they be able to carry full passengers, bags and enough fuel to get to YYC or even YVR?

There shouldn't be any penalties at all on the CS100 if he gets the 340m he's asking for.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-04-10 15:02:01 and read 10517 times.

Quoting YYZYYT (Reply 91):

While I generally agree with your thoughts in this thread, I think this one misses the point - who takes public transit to the airport?

Globally, public transit to airports is common...and it's the only way to go.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YTZ
Posted 2013-04-10 15:03:01 and read 10529 times.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 128):
A majority of counsellors supported the tunnel now under construction. These 22+ hence have demonstrated support of airport infrastructure improvement, if not expansion. He needs the same people aboard now for expansion. Presumably a straw poll has been done to assess that support leading up to this PR, and presumably it's in place.

That you have middle of the road counsellors like Karen Stintz and Shelly Carrol opposing this doesn't actually inspire much confidence. Reading their comments, I have that sinking feeling in my stomach.

How somebody can be opposed to a thousand more jobs for this city is beyond me.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 129):
However, the TPA just issued this statement

Boilerplate. You can't expect them to say anything else.

Quoting Noise (Reply 130):
Does anybody know what the product will look like in Porter's 2 cabin configuration?

Mostly like the mock-up. But 107 seats in a 2-class config most certainly means 31" pitch in the back of the bus. Not a fan of that. Let's see how much those slim seats make a difference.

Quoting mesaflyguy (Reply 131):
I'm glad to see that these aircraft will (hopefully) be based at YTZ. Will be good for the airport and for PD.

  

Quoting Bureaucromancer (Reply 132):
There shouldn't be any penalties at all on the CS100 if he gets the 340m he's asking for.

Exactly. If PD gets this, they could hypothetically start an all-J YTZ-LCY service aimed at the Bay Street crowd just like BA's LCY-JFK service aimed at Wall St. and City travelers.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 128):
Once PD has done the "heavy lifting" and get a runway extension and CS100 approval for YTZ (assuming it proceeds), AC and WS and others can benefit from the same enhanced YTZ capabilities also down the line. That is, AC CS100 service to follow PD down the line.

I wouldn't bet on that. First, it'll be yet another type for them to handle (a particularly big deal for WS). Next, they are slot limited. WS hasn't bought in. And AC only has 30% of the slots. They have focused those slots on Montreal. Maybe they'll target Ottawa. Realistically though, AC just doesn't have the slots to compete flat out with PD at YTZ. There's a reason that PD bought all those Q400s and flies with only 61% load factor. They wanted to keep the slots out of AC's hands while they plotted their expansion.

Beyond the slots, there's also space considerations at YTZ. Where would AC park all these aircraft?

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YTZ
Posted 2013-04-10 15:24:45 and read 10432 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 98):
If you read between the lines at AC's announcements, it looks like the CSeries is being strongly considered, but not anytime soon.

It has been stated that the E190 will stay until 2020. In AC's narrow body plans, it is mentioned that in addition to the A320 series replacement, another "smaller efficient niche type aircraft" would replace the E190s. So unless Embraer comes up with something new, it seems to indicate the CSeries.

Remember our past discussion? If PD gets approval, I'm hoping that will prompt AC to order the CSeries a year or two early. Otherwise, they'll be bleeding cash to try and compete with PD's low costs. If they wait till 2020, PD will have taken delivery of its entire order of CS100s and will have started its transition to an all CSeries fleet by using up those options. AC will have quite the challenge competing with that cost base.

Even more than AC though, I'd love to see WS transition entirely to the CSeries. AC would still need at least a few 321/739s. WS though could go entirely to the CSeries. BBD could use a CS500 launch customer. WS doesn't need/use the 320 cargo handling system. Nor do they really need the 737MAX's capbilites. A CS500/CS300 mix would serve them quite well. Unfortunately, their board probably sold their souls to Boeing for good rates on the 737NGs!

[Edited 2013-04-10 15:28:53]

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YTZ
Posted 2013-04-10 15:31:21 and read 10411 times.

Quoting Noise (Reply 130):
Does anybody know what the product will look like in Porter's 2 cabin configuration?

Give the 107 seat estimate, if I had to guess, I'd say 95Y+12J. So something like 31" pitch for Y and 37" pitch for J.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: yyz717
Posted 2013-04-10 15:45:19 and read 10337 times.

Quoting YTZ" class="quote" target="_blank">YTZ (Reply 134):
That you have middle of the road counsellors like Karen Stintz and Shelly Carrol opposing this doesn't actually inspire much confidence. Reading their comments, I have that sinking feeling in my stomach.

Ya, I know what you mean. This might be too much for the moderate counsellors to bite off.

Quoting YTZ" class="quote" target="_blank">YTZ (Reply 134):
They have focused those slots on Montreal. Maybe they'll target Ottawa. Realistically though, AC just doesn't have the slots to compete flat out with PD at YTZ. There's a reason that PD bought all those Q400s and flies with only 61% load factor. They wanted to keep the slots out of AC's hands while they plotted their expansion.


More slots can be released by the TPA, in theory, esp to new carriers and new markets. I'm sure if USExpress or United Express wanted to fly to YTZ tomorrow, TPA would release more slots (and similar reduce gen aviation movements).

Quoting YTZ" class="quote" target="_blank">YTZ (Reply 134):
Beyond the slots, there's also space considerations at YTZ. Where would AC park all these aircraft?

AC's 15x daily Q400 operation now only requires 1 Q400 at YTZ at a time. I rarely ever see 2 in YTZ at once. So parking is not a big issue.

Quoting YTZ" class="quote" target="_blank">YTZ (Reply 135):
WS though could go entirely to the CSeries. BBD could use a CS500 launch customer. WS doesn't need/use the 320 cargo handling system. Nor do they really need the 737MAX's capbilites. A CS500/CS300 mix would serve them quite well. Unfortunately, their board probably sold their souls to Boeing for good rates on the 737NGs!

WS has been converting most recent NG orders into 738's. Their LF is 85%+. They need the 738, and likely the 739ER and MAX-8 and MAX-9. They will not be shrinking their aircraft size. They could add the CS100/300 to replace the 736/73G fleet but they will still need the 738-esque aircraft.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: Noise
Posted 2013-04-10 15:49:05 and read 10310 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 136):
Give the 107 seat estimate, if I had to guess, I'd say 95Y+12J. So something like 31" pitch for Y and 37" pitch for J.

Thanks, but what about onboard product offerings and service? Will their J product be an upgrade of what they currently offer cabin-wide? Or will their current cabin-wide service be standard J service, with Y service being a downgrade from what they currently offer...much like AC has to offer now.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: planemaker
Posted 2013-04-10 15:51:37 and read 10316 times.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 129):
However, the TPA just issued this statement: "For the past 30 years, the TPA has operated the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport based upon the terms of the 1983 Tripartite Agreement, and will continue to do so. The TPA will not consider any change of use to the airport until a determination is first made by the elected representatives on Toronto City Council regarding Porter's proposed changes to the 1983 Tripartite Agreement."

Opening up the Tripartite Agreement would be opening up a legal can of worms. Every jet operator would want access to pick up or drop off customers..

Quoting YTZ (Reply 134):
How somebody can be opposed to a thousand more jobs for this city is beyond me.

Because it isn't a thousand more jobs.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: brilondon
Posted 2013-04-10 15:57:53 and read 10274 times.

Quoting Noise (Reply 130):

I have to say, this is really good news for air travel in Canada IMO. It has the potential to bring fares down or to increase the quality of travel.

Does anybody know what the product will look like in Porter's 2 cabin configuration?

Not really bringing fares down as PD is not a LCC and was never intended to be such when they started.

Quoting YTZ" class="quote" target="_blank">YTZ (Reply 117):
Exactly my point. The airport rail link really only helps you if you are going from Pearson to the core and vice versa. It doesn't really do much for the vast majority of us who don't live in the core. If I'm going to take the airport rail link and access it by subway, I might as well go to YTZ. The TTC costs $3. The airport rail link will cost $15. I'll spend $18 to get to Pearson in 1.5 hrs by transit from Scarborough, when I can spend $3 and get to YTZ in 1.5 hours.

The rail link will be great though for visitors to Toronto, most of who are destined for the core.
Quoting YTZ" class="quote" target="_blank">YTZ (Reply 117):
As per Google, from STC to YTZ by TTC is 1 hr 20 mins. And that's the key advantage of YTZ. If I am at STC, why am I driving and paying to store my car while I'm gone? I'll either be cabbing it, or more likely, I'll be hopping on the TTC.

I guess you and I are from different economic classes. I lived downtown in Toronto up until about 12 years ago and did think twice about the cost of having to get to the airport, as I did not see much use in the TTC then or now. I also don't think if you are concerned about 12 bucks that maybe you would not be travelling like I do.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YTZ
Posted 2013-04-10 16:06:49 and read 10260 times.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 137):
WS has been converting most recent NG orders into 738's. Their LF is 85%+. They need the 738, and likely the 739ER and MAX-8 and MAX-9. They will not be shrinking their aircraft size. They could add the CS100/300 to replace the 736/73G fleet but they will still need the 738-esque aircraft.

They've only got 21 or so 738s. The bulk of their orders are still for 73Gs. And when they order the 737MAX, they'll getting a lot of MAX-7s for sure.

I was referring to the hypothetical CS500. The CS300 won't cut it for WS. But the CS500 could easily carry 160-170 passengers yet cost as much or less to operate than their 73Gs today. WS would do quite well with a mix of CS500s and CS100s. The CS500 would let them upgauge substantially more than the 737 MAX family since they would be able to replace their entire 73G fleet with a larger aircraft. Higher demand routes can be dealt with by offering more frequencies. The CS100 would work well to augment the CS500 where just a little bit of additional capacity is required.

Consider today's Westjet fleet for example:

13 736 119 seats
69 73G 136 seats
21 738 174 seats

Let's assume they are competing by offering something coparable to Porter. So a CS100 with 107 seats and a CS500 with 147 seats. That would give you a hypothetical fleet mix:

14 CS100
89 CS500

The same number of aircraft. Substantially lower operating costs. Very rough math of course. And there's other options like going for a CS300/CS500 mix and relegating the routes that require the 736 to Encore. The main point, however, is that with the CS500, WS can upgauge in a similar manner to buying the 737MAX.

All that said, I'll be extremely surprised if Westjet goes for the CSeries.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: multimark
Posted 2013-04-10 16:25:30 and read 10218 times.

I honestly can't believe a-netters are taking this seriously. A struggling airline with ppor load factors having to get an enrvironmental assessment to by three levels of gov't in order to launch ill-defined routes. Not going to happen.

Deluce's m.o. to date is to build it to sell.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: Kaiarahi
Posted 2013-04-10 16:39:46 and read 10143 times.

Quoting multimark (Reply 142):
struggling airline

Evidence? Their investors (Edgestone, OMERS, GE Asset Management) are not stupid/naive. Nor is Don Carty.

Quoting multimark (Reply 142):
ppor load factors

They have what they need, for now. Load factors are not yields. WS didn't have great load factors in its first years either.

Quoting multimark (Reply 142):
having to get an enrvironmental assessment to by three levels of gov't

How so? Which 3 levels?

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: multimark
Posted 2013-04-10 16:47:07 and read 10130 times.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 143):
Evidence? Their investors (Edgestone, OMERS, GE Asset Management) are not stupid/naive. Nor is Don Carty.

Don Carty? CP-bust. AA-bankrupt.
The investors would profit just as well from a sellout as a sucessful business plan. Have you seen any financial from PD lately, or are they the only North Americna airline to magically cretate profits out of mid-50s load factors?

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 143):
How so? Which 3 levels?

Municipal, provincial, federal.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: ElPistolero
Posted 2013-04-10 18:20:42 and read 9854 times.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 143):
How so? Which 3 levels?

"Under the terms of the Tripartite Agreement signed in 1983 by the City of Toronto, the Toronto Harbour Commission and the federal government, neither jets nor extensions on the existing runways at Billy Bishop are allowed."

http://business.financialpost.com/20...n-to-buy-cseries-jets-fly-farther/

Is the Harbour Commission provincial?

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: planemaker
Posted 2013-04-10 18:26:28 and read 9815 times.

Quoting multimark (Reply 142):
I honestly can't believe a-netters are taking this seriously.

As you point out, getting through an environmental review to extend the runway into Lake Ontario at both ends by what Porter calls a "modest" 168 meters (551 feet) at each end will take forever. But even before the environmental review the Tripartite Agreement would have to be amended... and that will be a battle royale IF any party even agrees to being open to amending it.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 145):
"Under the terms of the Tripartite Agreement signed in 1983 by the City of Toronto, the Toronto Harbour Commission and the federal government, neither jets

And if they were to allow one jet they will have to allow all jets.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: ElPistolero
Posted 2013-04-10 18:35:12 and read 9800 times.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 140):
Not really bringing fares down as PD is not a LCC and was never intended to be such when they started.

They've been playing with their revenue management system over the past couple of months.

"But Mr. Deluce said the declines are the result of Porter changing its pricing strategy in recent months to encourage price-sensitive travellers to book further out and in turn raise overall prices at the airline.

He said the strategy is working, with yields improving. And while this has had a negative impact on traffic, as the strategy takes hold, he expects both traffic and load factors to rise again in 2013."

http://business.financialpost.com/20...ath-forward-as-rivals-fill-planes/

Quoting planemaker (Reply 146):
And if they were to allow one jet they will have to allow all jets.

One can only guess that PD has done some due diligence before buying these aircraft, and has plans for the C-Series in the event that they are not allowed to operate out of YTZ.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: Mexicana757
Posted 2013-04-10 18:55:57 and read 9749 times.

Here is a link from Porter and their plans for future growth with the CS100.

www.porterplans.com

[Edited 2013-04-10 18:57:51]

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: planemaker
Posted 2013-04-10 19:05:14 and read 9688 times.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 147):
One can only guess that PD has done some due diligence before buying these aircraft, and has plans for the C-Series in the event that they are not allowed to operate out of YTZ.

He hasn't bought them... the order is conditional on:

- The Tripartite Agreement being amended
- The runway being lengthened
- Additional slots/airport expansion

It is really quite silly to do a dog and pony show when there is a slim to nil chance of the order going through. Talk about putting the cart before the "donkey."

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YYZYYT
Posted 2013-04-10 20:07:39 and read 9535 times.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 145):
Is the Harbour Commission provincial?

no, it's a federal body (all navigable waterways fall under federal jurisdiction).

This is certainly an interesting turn.... I am guessing Deluce would not have gone public like this if he hadn't done a count and decided that it was possible.

And the politics really are as good as they will ever get. The interesting twist: that the order for the latest Canadian aircraft is conditional on this approval, makes for a great selling point. The Harper government will have nothing to lose in Toronto by ignoring the downtown Toronto vote (he will never win any of those seats anyway) and can sell this in Montreal / Quebec as a sign of the government's commitment to Bombardier (where the government really needs to win back some seats).

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 133):
Quoting YYZYYT (Reply 91):While I generally agree with your thoughts in this thread, I think this one misses the point - who takes public transit to the airport?Globally, public transit to airports is common...and it's the only way to go.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for public transit (I commute on some or all of Via, Go and TTC daily, would never do it any other way). But I think its fair to say that our focus on public transit has been... "lacking" over these last 40 years or so.

There isn't exactly an easy way to get to Pearson, is there?

And even YTZ is only slightly better. And THAT is only for those with a convenient starting point, like a Go bus stop in Brooklin Ont., or a home near a TTC subway stop.

Let's start in Agincourt (north Scarborough - near where I grew up). Say, a 20 minute walk/bus ride to get to the Sheppard line, then a connection to the Yonge line, then a walk from Union over to the Royal York to get the PD shuttle... all the while dragging your suitcase along? or kids? The drive to YYZ is half the time - no wonder people do it that way.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: ytz
Posted 2013-04-10 20:25:36 and read 9493 times.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 145):
Is the Harbour Commission provincial?

Harbour Commission is actually the Toronto Port Authority. Federal agency.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 149):
It is really quite silly to do a dog and pony show when there is a slim to nil chance of the order going through. Talk about putting the cart before the "donkey."

Dog and pony show was quite essential. No way Porter could do this by not forcing a very public conversation on expansion of the airport. Quiet lobbying would have got them nowhere.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: planemaker
Posted 2013-04-10 20:50:40 and read 9487 times.

Quoting YYZYYT (Reply 150):
I am guessing Deluce would not have gone public like this if he hadn't done a count and decided that it was possible.

I think that he has no downside... and generates a ton of free publicity. But I think that something more fundamental is at play. The investors need a way to cash out. The IPO 2 years ago was a flop. I think that this may be a "hail mary" play to enable the investors to eventually cash out.

Quoting ytz (Reply 151):
Dog and pony show was quite essential. No way Porter could do this by not forcing a very public conversation on expansion of the airport. Quiet lobbying would have got them nowhere.

He didn't need a dog and pony show... a press release saying that he was going to approach council, the TPA and the Feds to request they amend the Tripartite Agreement would have "ignited" the same very public conversation.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: ytz
Posted 2013-04-10 20:55:56 and read 9472 times.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 152):
He didn't need a dog and pony show... a press release saying that he was going to approach council, the TPA and the Feds to request they amend the Tripartite Agreement would have "ignited" the same very public conversation.

I consider him a poor leader if he passed up an opportunity to promote his airline and sell his vision in person as opposed to a press release.

Only bad leaders hide behind Friday afternoon press releases. Good to see he is tackling the debate head on.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: planemaker
Posted 2013-04-10 21:12:54 and read 9421 times.

Quoting ytz (Reply 153):
sell his vision in person as opposed to a press release.

That is another topic. He has... and will have lots of opportunities to "sell his vision" (which is at this point a "fantasy").

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: ytz
Posted 2013-04-10 21:15:51 and read 9418 times.

Quoting YYZYYT (Reply 150):
Let's start in Agincourt (north Scarborough - near where I grew up). Say, a 20 minute walk/bus ride to get to the Sheppard line, then a connection to the Yonge line, then a walk from Union over to the Royal York to get the PD shuttle... all the while dragging your suitcase along? or kids? The drive to YYZ is half the time - no wonder people do it that way.

Those of us who aren't blessed with money to flush away on parking at Pearson will definitely take transit to YTZ. I live in Malvern. I've done exactly that.

Pearson for all intents and purposes is simply not accessible from Scarborough via transit. And driving to Pearson involves either a) paying for parking, b) paying for a crosstown cab ride, or c) inconveniencing someone else to get them to drive you to the airport.

Oh and you're forgetting GO transit. Try your scenario with GO. You'll find it's much more pleasant and convenient.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: 9252fly
Posted 2013-04-10 21:33:54 and read 9369 times.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 152):
I think that this may be a "hail mary" play to enable the investors to eventually cash out.

Yup! That's how I see it too. I honestly don't see PD as a long term player.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: planemaker
Posted 2013-04-10 21:41:34 and read 9357 times.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 143):
Evidence? Their investors (Edgestone, OMERS, GE Asset Management) are not stupid/naive.

The point is that institutional investors expect to cash out relatively quickly with a very tidy sum. With the failed IPO of two years ago there is even less of a genuine growth/opportunity story to sell to potential investors due to the Porter's rapid expansion and limited growth opportunities due to YTZ slot restrictions (and Q400 range/speed limitations).

Quoting 9252fly (Reply 156):
Yup! That's how I see it too.

It doesn't make any sense to "telegraph" your move... and quite a dramatic move... to your competitors 3-4 years before it may even be permitted to happen.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-04-10 21:45:13 and read 9352 times.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 146):
And if they were to allow one jet they will have to allow all jets.

That's not true at all. The jets will still have to conform to noise and emission standards set by the airport. Their won't be any until the CS100 enters service.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 149):

- The Tripartite Agreement being amended
- The runway being lengthened
- Additional slots/airport expansion

If 4000' is good enough for London City, it's good enough for initial CS100 operations off of Bishop. They don't necessarily need additional slots off of YTZ since they also plan to expand off of their home base. They couldn't do LA and Vancouver, but they could do 80% of N.America...good for a start and they can also set up in YYC, for instance, to one stop anywhere.

The tripartite would have to be amended but the Port Authority has not ruled out signing a new agreement...all they have said so far is the city would have to vote for it first. There has been no comment from the feds but we're a long way from 1983 and things change. The political and economic climate is a far cry from what it was then.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 152):
He didn't need a dog and pony show... a press release saying that he was going to approach council, the TPA and the Feds to request they amend the Tripartite Agreement would have "ignited" the same very public conversation.

How boring would that have been?

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YXD172
Posted 2013-04-10 21:50:44 and read 9337 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 158):

If 4000' is good enough for London City, it's good enough for initial CS100 operations off of Bishop. They don't necessarily need additional slots off of YTZ since they also plan to expand off of their home base. They couldn't do LA and Vancouver, but they could do 80% of N.America...good for a start and they can also set up in YYC, for instance, to one stop anywhere.

A part of me wonders if they're asking for the runway extension just so they can 'settle' for amending the tripartite agreement but leaving the runway as is - it's been mentioned that this would allow some CSeries operations with limited range, and they may be able to squeeze some additional slots out of it too.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: planemaker
Posted 2013-04-10 22:03:12 and read 9335 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 158):
That's not true at all. The jets will still have to conform to noise and emission standards set by the airport. Their won't be any until the CS100 enters service.

I was referring to biz jets and there are several that that meet noise and emission standards. Obviously, there are no commercial jets that can fly into YTZ... yet.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 158):
If 4000' is good enough for London City, it's good enough for initial CS100 operations off of Bishop.

BBD said that the CS100 will need the runway extension at YTZ.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 158):
They don't necessarily need additional slots off of YTZ since they also plan to expand off of their home base.

But Porter said that they need the slots for the conditional order.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 158):
The tripartite would have to be amended but the Port Authority has not ruled out signing a new agreement...all they have said so far is the city would have to vote for it first. There has been no comment from the feds but we're a long way from 1983 and things change. The political and economic climate is a far cry from what it was then.

With the Ford mayor, not-mayor, mayor again "show" I would say that the climate is not a far cry at all from what it was. And Porter's dog and pony just served to wave a red flag in front of all the opponents of YTZ... he wants jets, runway extensions into Lake Ontario and more slots!

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 158):
How boring would that have been?

Absolutely... it makes for great theatre. Just look at all the ink that has been spilt (electrons sent?)

However, how much sense does it make to let your competitors know what you plan to try to do... 3-4 years in advance?

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-04-10 23:44:56 and read 9215 times.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 160):
BBD said that the CS100 will need the runway extension at YTZ.

Obviously they don't need more than 4000' for flights of up to 1500nm since that what they advertise for London City, which has a significantly tougher approach profile.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 160):
But Porter said that they need the slots for the conditional order.

What they need is a new tripartite to allow the CS100...everything else is negotiable.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 160):
However, how much sense does it make to let your competitors know what you plan to try to do... 3-4 years in advance?

A boring press release would have sent the same message and besides, there is no way to do achieve what they want in private so it's not like the other guys were never going to find out.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 160):
With the Ford mayor, not-mayor, mayor again "show" I would say that the climate is not a far cry at all from what it was. And Porter's dog and pony just served to wave a red flag in front of all the opponents of YTZ... he wants jets, runway extensions into Lake Ontario and more slots!

The city council is the main stumbling block and judging by the polls in the star and globe, there is a huge majority of respondents that are for the plan. Ultimately, the council and mayor will have to listen to their voters...unless they don't plan on running again.

In 1983, Trudeau was the PM...I'd say Harper is a big change from him...and plenty more pro business. The Port Authority has already said it's basically up to the city and they've been working with Porter all the way so far...they will probably go along with the plan.

As well, Porter wasn't using Bishop in '83. The city has had almost a decade of Porter operations from YTZ and there haven't been throngs of angry pitchfork bearing Torontonians storming the gates of Billy Bishop.

There were plenty of protests against Porter then, and yet, here they are...still there and still growing. Instead of worries about traffic and noise in general, now people are worried about more traffic and noise than the Q400's...and while there will be more traffic, it won't be any noisier with the CS100.

The Q400 set the stage and it has been universally accepted. Few would notice the change with CS100's operating at YTZ. If it's no noisier than the Q, (which won't be a problem), you'll see all but the most rabid luddite councillor come on board.

I bet that there will be special permits issued to BBD to do test flights into Bishop to prove out the concept, one way or the other.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: r2rho
Posted 2013-04-11 00:36:48 and read 9138 times.

A pity this is the confirmation of an unidentified customer rather than a new order.

Porter's move is highly risky and I put a big question mark on this LOI... not because I doubt their route/market strategy, but because they have to overturn a long-standing political agreement - however outdated and unrealistic that agreement may be. Trying to reason with politicians or public opinion about such an issue as aircraft noise is useless - to them a jet is a jet and there is no difference in perception between a GTF and a JT8. I wish them luck... but the chances are slim.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2013-04-11 05:22:40 and read 8879 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 161):
Quoting planemaker (Reply 160):
With the Ford mayor, not-mayor, mayor again "show" I would say that the climate is not a far cry at all from what it was. And Porter's dog and pony just served to wave a red flag in front of all the opponents of YTZ... he wants jets, runway extensions into Lake Ontario and more slots!

The city council is the main stumbling block and judging by the polls in the star and globe, there is a huge majority of respondents that are for the plan. Ultimately, the council and mayor will have to listen to their voters...unless they don't plan on running again.

I'd be surprised if it turned out that PD hadn't already gotten a nod from the Feds w.r.t. to removing the jet ban and lengthening the runway. Also, since the Port Authority is a federal creature, they will likely 'take direction' on the subject.

Which leaves city council. Downtown aldermen will I think for the most part kowtow to the condo dwellers around Queens Quay and island residents, but PD supporters need to work on representatives away from the central area - these people don't really have a dog in the fight and could be 'influenced' to support the proposal. Mayor Ford I don't think can effectively influence the debate, given his current situation. Heck, he might not be mayor much longer.

An environmental review could be a major problem, as opponents, and there will be many, can use squadrons of lawyers and the possibility/likelihood of injunctions to gum up the whole process. Perhaps Harper's gang could introduce legislation to short circuit injunctions, I don't know. Also, since any ER would be under federal guidelines, the review adjudicators could be subject to influence. PD's plan carefully notes that the proposed runway extension will not affect the maritime navigation boundary around the airport.

Getting the runway lengthened by 2016 seems overly optimistic to me. Maybe 2018. But getting the jet ban lifted w/o a longer runway could mean CS100 ops to more regional destinations like YWG & YHZ (and maybe YYT) could go forward. Some existing Q400 routes like YTZ-YOW-YHZ-YYT and YTZ-EWR could convert to CS100 service. Which would release some Q400s to open up additional service to YSB, YYG, YSM, etc., as well as more transborder. If there is the traffic.

From the Feds p.o.v., getting behind this is mostly a win. They're not likely to win seats in Central Toronto in the next election, but securing jobs in Quebec might, and they will need more seats in Quebec to retain a majority in 2015.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: queb
Posted 2013-04-11 05:31:18 and read 8851 times.

Porter surely ask more than they really want. Negotiations stategy...

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: yenne09
Posted 2013-04-11 05:57:36 and read 8811 times.

The runway at YTZ has two starter pads which mean that the overall lenght available is 4600 feet. There are other example of urban airports handling jets with short runway. Among others the most surprising airport is Rio Santos Dumont with a 4300 feet runway. After that, there is London City airport with a runway lenght of 4900 feet. Finally, the plan to reopen Plymouth airport (UK) has an ultimate step of enlarging the runway to 3930 to have the capacity of operating regional jet. But according to «Le Devoir» Montreal's newspaper (www.ledevoir.com), the use of the CSeries at YTZ nesds the lift of the jet ban and an extension of the runway (168 m at each end). Only future will tell what will happen at YTZ to understand what is behind the announcement of the buy of the CSeries by Porter.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: ytz
Posted 2013-04-11 07:57:51 and read 8583 times.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 146):
As you point out, getting through an environmental review to extend the runway into Lake Ontario at both ends by what Porter calls a "modest" 168 meters (551 feet) at each end will take forever.

With the new EA process? A year. They'll be done by the end of the 2014. Adding fill is hardly some massively risky process from an engineering perspective. This is even less of a challenge or risk than the tunnel that is being constructed right now.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 146):
But even before the environmental review the Tripartite Agreement would have to be amended... and that will be a battle royale IF any party even agrees to being open to amending it.

This is arguably their biggest challenge. But it'll be interesting to see if City Councillors who desperately want federal dollars for all sorts of programs and issues are willing to sink a potential $3 billion order that the federal government is strongly backing.

Downtown councillors will be opposed for sure. I'm not so sure about councillors elsewhere. Poll after poll says that a majority of 416 residents would support expansion of the airport.

Quoting multimark (Reply 142):
A struggling airline with ppor load factors...

Struggling? The Globe and Mail reported that Porter told them in 2010 that they needed a 49% LF to breakeven. If they are at 61% now, they'll be doing quite well. Load factors don't equate to yields or profits. Porter doesn't fly the gas guzzlers that the competition does. They don't need the same LF to be successful.

In the end, as a private enterprise, they don't have to report a thing. But if they are struggling, how come we aren't seeing major investors running for the exits, and trying to sell their stakes? If anything with this gambit, they all seem to be doubling (or tripling) down on Porter. That's quite a statement.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: ytz
Posted 2013-04-11 08:03:13 and read 8567 times.

I honestly don't get what some people have against Porter. I welcome more competition. A Toronto-based airline, serving Toronto, with Canadian-built airplanes offering better service from a convenient location. What more could you possibly ask for?

Canadians. We're like crabs in a bucket sometimes. Can't stand to see a successful enterprise.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: auroralives
Posted 2013-04-11 08:22:25 and read 8516 times.

Quoting ytz (Reply 166):
Downtown councillors will be opposed for sure.

I've never quite understood this sentiment.... I mean it's the downtown O&D crowd who are one of Porters biggest markets. And I would suspect that the vast majority of downtown residents couldn't see/hear the airport if they tried.

Are the majority of downtown residents actually against the airport ?????

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: arrow
Posted 2013-04-11 08:41:10 and read 8464 times.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 160):
However, how much sense does it make to let your competitors know what you plan to try to do... 3-4 years in advance?
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 161):
I bet that there will be special permits issued to BBD to do test flights into Bishop to prove out the concept, one way or the other.

It strikes me that the winner in all of this is BBD -- even if they don't sell a single frame to Porter. The attention now focused on the capabilities of their new bird will cause a few potential buyers to have a harder look and maybe pull the trigger. First flight is only a few months away (fingers-crossed for BBD I guess) and you couldn't ask for a better time for all this to hit the news.

Quoting ytz (Reply 167):
Canadians. We're like crabs in a bucket sometimes. Can't stand to see a successful enterprise.

I'm old enough to remember when Avro Canada launched the world's second jet liner ( literally days after the Comet) and watched it descend into abject failure because the government wanted the company to focus on fighters, and Air Canada (then Trans Canada Airlines) had absolutely no interest in it -- despite Howard Hughes falling in love with it. At the time, the general rule of thumb was if the home-country airline wouldn't bite, neither would anyone else. Kudos to Porter for taking the chance -- albeit a very tenuous one.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YYZYYT
Posted 2013-04-11 09:11:32 and read 8399 times.

Quoting ytz (Reply 166):
Quoting multimark (Reply 142):A struggling airline with ppor load factors...
Struggling? The Globe and Mail reported that Porter told them in 2010 that they needed a 49% LF to breakeven. If they are at 61% now, they'll be doing quite well. Load factors don't equate to yields or profits. Porter doesn't fly the gas guzzlers that the competition does. They don't need the same LF to be successful.

and not just that, Porter aims for the business crowd, their fares are not bargain basement.

Quoting auroralives (Reply 168):
I've never quite understood this sentiment.... I mean it's the downtown O&D crowd who are one of Porters biggest markets. And I would suspect that the vast majority of downtown residents couldn't see/hear the airport if they tried.

Are the majority of downtown residents actually against the airport ?????

the downtown crowd who love Porter most are the downtown business core.

Residents are a different matter, it's... complicated. I'd say that there is a sense in Toronto that the City has mis-handled the waterfront, resulting in a curtain of condos that follow the lake, and the Gardiner which makes the waterfront accessible waterfront. So there is a general sense that we have to "fix" the waterfront (which is why prior mayor Miller so loved Chicago). But in the minds of many the island airport has become a lightning rod for this sense of unease.

Add to that the residents in the immediate area (a bunch of co-operatives and condos, whose residents tend to be left-leaning anyway...) and the councillors who represent them (who are elected precisely because they speak the same language as these residents). And there you have a "movement".

Despite all of this, I know many people who live "downtown" (which could be many miles from the airport) who do like and use the airport, and porter. Sometimes, these are the very same people who will say that they disapprove of the airport and Porter....

I for one will be very interested in following this debate.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: infiniti329
Posted 2013-04-11 09:27:57 and read 8344 times.

After doing some research is was soley because of PD that the TPA was able turn its first ever profit. So with that being said I think I can figure who's corner the TPA will be in. From cash perspective TPA should want this.

I had posted a month a to ago regarding PD and a runway extension (post is now archived), many people thought it would never happen.My basis was for them to use their Q400 for 78 seats vs the 70 they are limited to now. A runway extension would 2 for 1 deal in my book both their Q400's and CS100.

If PD is able to start jet services to the top destinations in N. America from YTZ, I think it would niche that no other Canadian carrier can match. Being able to get to places like Florida, California, Western Canada from downtown Toronto on a non-stop flight... the definition of convenience. Saving people time, money, and stress from avoiding travelling all the way to Mississauga (YYZ) to fly anywhere past Ottawa and Montreal...

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YYZYYT
Posted 2013-04-11 09:53:35 and read 8261 times.

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 171):
I had posted a month a to ago regarding PD and a runway extension (post is now archived), many people thought it would never happen.My basis was for them to use their Q400 for 78 seats vs the 70 they are limited to now. A runway extension would 2 for 1 deal in my book both their Q400's and CS100.

I was one of those nay-sayers!   

I still think that the runway extension is unlikely, especially given the need for Environmental Impact assessments... but I think that the more likely outcome is approval to use the C100 on the present runway, just with restrictions as to range/load.

As other have stated, this still gives Porter most of North America... particularly if they can restrict loads and still turn a profit.

All that said, it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong - time will tell.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: queb
Posted 2013-04-11 10:44:17 and read 8145 times.

federal Transport Minister Denis Lebel said in an interview Ottawa would be willing to review Porter’s proposal.

http://business.financialpost.com/20...downtown-toronto-airport-overhaul/

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: Noise
Posted 2013-04-11 10:45:05 and read 8122 times.

OK so...what happens to PD and the BBD deal if the runway extension isn't approved? Or, what happens if the runway extension occurs only after 2016 (say, in 2018). What's PD going to do with these CS100 that can't fly out of YTZ...are they going to operate them out of YYZ? YUL? YOW? YHZ?

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: ytz
Posted 2013-04-11 10:56:16 and read 8101 times.

Quoting Noise (Reply 174):
OK so...what happens to PD and the BBD deal if the runway extension isn't approved? Or, what happens if the runway extension occurs only after 2016 (say, in 2018). What's PD going to do with these CS100 that can't fly out of YTZ...are they going to operate them out of YYZ? YUL? YOW? YHZ?

Some argue that if the runway extension isn't approved that Porter will still buy the aircraft. I don't see it. With that length of ruwnay, Porter would not get sufficient benefit over the Q400. I think the business case would be flimsy. That's my speculation anyway. If they had any confidence they could base the aircraft elsewhere, I think they would have signed a firm deal, instead of a LOI.


There is one place I think Porter bungled this. They should have pursued the runway extension and the overturning of the "not jets" restriction separately and sequentially. They could have pushed for the runway extension first arguing that they need it to enable direct flights to Halifax and to improve safety, etc. Once the runway was built, they could have then argued for an overturning of the "no jets" rule. I would bet an incremental strategy may well have worked than going for it all in one shot.

Kudos on them for trying. Still a toss-up though.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2013-04-11 11:57:06 and read 8012 times.

Quoting arrow (Reply 169):
I'm old enough to remember when Avro Canada launched the world's second jet liner ( literally days after the Comet) and watched it descend into abject failure because the government wanted the company to focus on fighters, and Air Canada (then Trans Canada Airlines) had absolutely no interest in it -- despite Howard Hughes falling in love with it.


Your memory is a little faulty:
- arguably, the Jetliner WAS the first to fly. The Comet's 'first flight' was in fact a high-speed taxi test that got out of hand;
- AC (then TCA) participated in some of the design studies for the Jetliner and were definitely interested if it could meet performance goals (i.e., YYZ-YWG, full load, with a 75 knot headwind - not uncommon in the winter). The original design had he a/c powered by 2 relatively efficient RR Avon axial flow engines. RR informed Avro that the Avon would not be ready for first flight AND might not be available due to the Korean War, so Avro switched to 4RR Derwents, centrifugal flow, relatively speaking gas guzzlers. The Jetliner was then not able to meet AC performance requirements.
- Mr Hughes fell in love with everything. He bought the damn L1649A Starliner when the writing was on the wall for props.

[quote=Noise,reply=174]OK so...what happens to PD and the BBD deal if the runway extension isn't approved? Or, what happens if the runway extension occurs only after 2016 (say, in 2018). What's PD going to do with these CS100 that can't fly out of YTZ...are they going to operate them out of YYZ? YUL? YOW? YHZ?

Personally, I think 2018 is likely the earliest an extended runway would be available.

That said, I think they would open up YTZ-YWG, YTZ-YHZ, and maybe YTZ-YYT. Also perhaps FLL and/or MCO. As well, some EWR and MDW (ORD ?) flights might become CS100 services. All should be doable with a 4,000 ft runway.

It would be a bump in the road but I think digestible.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: multimark
Posted 2013-04-11 12:18:24 and read 8042 times.

Quoting ytz (Reply 166):
Struggling? The Globe and Mail reported that Porter told them in 2010 that they needed a 49% LF to breakeven. If they are at 61% now, they'll be doing quite well. Load factors don't equate to yields or profits. Porter doesn't fly the gas guzzlers that the competition does. They don't need the same LF to be successful.

The moon is made of cheese. I just told the Globe & Mail that, so its true.  

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: arrow
Posted 2013-04-11 13:13:32 and read 7912 times.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 176):
Your memory is a little faulty:

You are right.  

But in my own defense I was just a kid. My father was an engineer on the Arrow project, but even he thought they should have focused on the jet liner and the engine division (Orenda). Those were heady times for Canadian aviation; didn't last unfortunately.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: Kaiarahi
Posted 2013-04-11 14:06:50 and read 7792 times.

Quoting arrow (Reply 169):
Quoting multimark (Reply 177):
Quoting ytz (Reply 166):
Struggling? The Globe and Mail reported that Porter told them in 2010 that they needed a 49% LF to breakeven. If they are at 61% now, they'll be doing quite well. Load factors don't equate to yields or profits. Porter doesn't fly the gas guzzlers that the competition does. They don't need the same LF to be successful.

The moon is made of cheese. I just told the Globe & Mail that, so its true.

So what's your LF number for PD to break even? Please justify your answer.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: yyz717
Posted 2013-04-11 14:39:33 and read 7716 times.

Quoting YYZYYT (Reply 172):
I still think that the runway extension is unlikely, especially given the need for Environmental Impact assessments...

I agree with you. I actually think the environmental assessment will kill the "requested" runway extension. I simply cannot see landfill for a runway extension into the Inner Harbour ever being approved, or out the Western Gap either.

Quoting ytz (Reply 175):
There is one place I think Porter bungled this. They should have pursued the runway extension and the overturning of the "not jets" restriction separately and sequentially. They could have pushed for the runway extension first arguing that they need it to enable direct flights to Halifax and to improve safety, etc.

Not bungled, just a different approach. All or nothing. Now he will also have BBD execs and Quebec MP's lobbying for the runway extension and the end of the jet ban together. Creates more noise and momentum on all fronts.

The runway extension as a stand-alone "first" to enable direct nonstop flights to YHZ is a nonstarter strategy since YHZ is a small market and PD already flies YTZ-YHZ nonstop in the winter. I know....you can substitute other, further airports for the same argument but you can't really claim a safety aspect as a side benefit of a primarily business argument. There is no safety issue with the current short runway -- it simply means range is restricted.

Quoting multimark (Reply 177):
The moon is made of cheese.

If 22 or more Toronto counsellors say the moon is made of cheese, then it is.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: brilondon
Posted 2013-04-11 15:13:26 and read 7659 times.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 146):
And if they were to allow one jet they will have to allow all jets.

No, just look at LCY. They have been allowing jets and that is a very sensitive issue in London, UK. There are people there with decibel meters at the airport in Toronto. My neighbou

Quoting auroralives (Reply 168):
I've never quite understood this sentiment.... I mean it's the downtown O&D crowd who are one of Porters biggest markets. And I would suspect that the vast majority of downtown residents couldn't see/hear the airport if they tried.

Are the majority of downtown residents actually against the airport ?????
Quoting YYZYYT (Reply 170):
Residents are a different matter, it's... complicated. I'd say that there is a sense in Toronto that the City has mis-handled the waterfront, resulting in a curtain of condos that follow the lake, and the Gardiner which makes the waterfront accessible waterfront. So there is a general sense that we have to "fix" the waterfront (which is why prior mayor Miller so loved Chicago). But in the minds of many the island airport has become a lightning rod for this sense of unease.

I was a resident down there and yes you can hear the aircraft outside your window, but it is quieter than the Gardiner. I was facing the lake so the highway did not bother me.

I know a few noisy neighbours would also tear down the Gardiner and ban cars from the downtown altogether and just let the people who need to come to the core take the TTC but they are the minority. Those wingnuts unfortunately seem to have the ear of the city council and there are a few of the real dingbats who are the most vocal opponents of the airport and would like nothing better than to shut the whole thing down.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2013-04-11 15:52:19 and read 7571 times.

Quoting arrow (Reply 178):
But in my own defense I was just a kid. My father was an engineer on the Arrow project, but even he thought they should have focused on the jet liner and the engine division (Orenda). Those were heady times for Canadian aviation; didn't last unfortunately.

Don't feel bad about the memory faults...mark it up to cosmic rays.

I have looked up both the Jetliner and the Arrow a fair bit, having grown up in an air force and Air Canada family.

Gordon McGregor was reluctant to be the first to operate a jet airliner, no doubt. He was a dour Scot who took to heart CD Howe's famous "stay out of the taxpayer's pocket and I'll stay out of your way" maxim. And mostly he succeeded. McGregor was very dubious about the real operating costs of a jet, and the learning curve along the way. Better to let someone else pay for it, in his mind. But possibly an opportunity missed. Instead of Avons, it could have been a success with two Orendas. But we'll never know now.

As for the beautiful Arrow, star-crossed. But:
- costs out of control;
- no coherent flight test program that I can uncover;
- program run by an alcoholic.

Arrow would not, IMHO, achieved IOC until at least 1963, maybe as late as 1965. No one else was going to buy it. Luftwaffe kicked the tires, RAF considered it, but they had Lightning in the works (which was a piss poor interceptor: could carry 2 Firestreaks across a football pitch, then would have to land). But no real export possibilities, so a total production run of maybe 125-130. Even with the Iroquois, Arrow would always be hobbled by short legs. Prototypes were 350nm CR, production a/c might have been 500nm. Needed a turbofan. No guns, but not a dog fighter anyway, and armament of 8 Sparrows which in those days were of somewhat dubious reliability.

Despite urban myth, the actual recommendation to terminate came from our own CDS and the service heads. Army needed new armour and transport, navy needed new frigates, air force as well needed new long haul transport. Not enough dollars and Arrow was eating up about 80% of the available capital. So...despite the bad publicity, it was the right decision.

I recommend to you "The Arrow Scrapbook" by Peter Zuuring, Arrow Alliance Press,ISBN 1-55056-690-3. Probably Amazon can get a copy, but any reliable independent bookstore should be able to handle it. You could also try: www.arrow-alliance.com . Book is even handed, not a hatchet job.

Met Guest Hake a couple of times when he was west on AECL biz. Nice man, extremely intelligent. Also Tony Sawatzky, dated his younger (and crazy) daughter Janet a few times.

IM me if you want to discuss privately.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: ytz
Posted 2013-04-11 15:54:55 and read 7575 times.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 180):
I agree with you. I actually think the environmental assessment will kill the "requested" runway extension. I simply cannot see landfill for a runway extension into the Inner Harbour ever being approved, or out the Western Gap either.

The EA would have to show some kind of impact to rule out the expansion. Given that they've approved the tunnel and the impact that entails, I'm skeptical that a runway extension of 1100ft within the boundary of the current airport will be problematic.

I haven't heard significant opposition to the runway extension. Most opposition has focused on allowing "jets" at the airport.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 180):
I know....you can substitute other, further airports for the same argument but you can't really claim a safety aspect as a side benefit of a primarily business argument.

Given the ignorance of most of the politicians and public involved in this debate, this would have been better sell. And even if jets never panned out, Porter would have at least gotten the runway of it. This strategy though is going for broke.

Quoting multimark (Reply 177):
The moon is made of cheese. I just told the Globe & Mail that, so its true.

Your word is as good as Porter's. Show us what evidence you have that should cause us to doubt Porter's financial viability? I haven't seen a single one of their investors pull out. And apparently their investors are actually willing to fork over $2.3 billion to buy 30 CS100s. They have said they won't even need the IPO to raise capital. So what is it that you know that their investors don't? I'd seriously love to hear it.

It's a long shot. But I hope Porter succeeds. And if they do, there will be a lot of AC trolls here eating crow.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: Bureaucromancer
Posted 2013-04-11 17:07:00 and read 7465 times.

I have to agree that the EA itself isn't going to be much of a barrier. There's no shortage of landfilling happening in the lake, and while there are pretty tight restrictions on the cleanliness of the material used it is still fundamentally construction waste going into places like the Leslie spit. For that matter the Eglinton line doesn't have a specific soil disposal plan that I'm aware of, and there is very likely to be a soil recycling facility in the portlands in the next few years that could remediate just about anything to level that it would be allowed in the harbour.

The option I haven't seen on the table and would very much like to is to look at closing the runways other than 08/26 for a parkland expansion and getting GA, or at least light GA off the island. It certainly won't resolve the political issues, but will help the slot issue and tosses a bone to the crowd that wants to close the airport. Of course giving GA the boot probably means needing Pickering sooner which is a whole other kettle of fish that would only hurt the island if the issues get connected in public discussion.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: infiniti329
Posted 2013-04-11 17:07:37 and read 7478 times.

Could PD use this proposal as leverage to get CBP to make YTZ a pre-clearance airport, seeing how they want to go from 7 U.S. destinations to 15?

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: ytz
Posted 2013-04-11 17:25:41 and read 7429 times.

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 185):
Could PD use this proposal as leverage to get CBP to make YTZ a pre-clearance airport, seeing how they want to go from 7 U.S. destinations to 15?

Not as long as AC conspires with *A partner UA to oppose the request for preclearance at YTZ.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: planemaker
Posted 2013-04-11 17:36:44 and read 7406 times.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 181):
No, just look at LCY. They have been allowing jets and that is a very sensitive issue in London, UK. There are people there with decibel meters at the airport in Toronto. My neighbou

As I clarified in a couple of posts, I was referring to biz jets.

Quoting ytz (Reply 183):
I haven't seen a single one of their investors pull out.

Why would they... they've already forked over their money and are now in it for the ride. The failed IPO was their exit strategy.

Quoting ytz (Reply 183):
And apparently their investors are actually willing to fork over $2.3 billion to buy 30 CS100s.

No they are not.

Quoting ytz (Reply 183):
They have said they won't even need the IPO to raise capital.

They said that they would be looking at different options for financing the jets since it is a "conditional" order for delivery end of 2016/early 2017.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: planemaker
Posted 2013-04-11 17:47:58 and read 7400 times.

As I said earlier, Porter is just opening up a big can of worms... Air Canada, WestJet want in on Toronto Island airport if Ottawa approves Porter plan

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: infiniti329
Posted 2013-04-11 18:15:29 and read 7346 times.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 188):

As I said earlier, Porter is just opening up a big can of worms... Air Canada, WestJet want in on Toronto Island airport if Ottawa approves Porter plan
AC & WS are blowing smoke....

"He said his operations staff have already done calculations, and he believes WestJet could even land its 737s on the Island with a reduced capacity of 106 passengers if the runway is indeed extended to 5,100 feet as Porter’s plan proposes."-Gregg Saretsky

I dont think (correct me if I am wrong ) that the 737 NG can comply with the AC and WS getting on this is with their Q400's. If I am PD and Im footing the bill for the runway extension, AC and WS would be paying up.

[Edited 2013-04-11 18:51:03]

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2013-04-11 18:18:44 and read 7341 times.

Quoting Bureaucromancer (Reply 184):
The option I haven't seen on the table and would very much like to is to look at closing the runways other than 08/26 for a parkland expansion and getting GA, or at least light GA off the island. It certainly won't resolve the political issues, but will help the slot issue and tosses a bone to the crowd that wants to close the airport. Of course giving GA the boot probably means needing Pickering sooner which is a whole other kettle of fish that would only hurt the island if the issues get connected in public discussion.

If this proposal by PD goes ahead (possibly a big IF), GA and particularly LGA could be banished to Buttonville, as long as it exists, or Oshawa. At least they could land right beside a golf course.

Quoting ytz (Reply 186):
Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 185):
Could PD use this proposal as leverage to get CBP to make YTZ a pre-clearance airport, seeing how they want to go from 7 U.S. destinations to 15?

Not as long as AC conspires with *A partner UA to oppose the request for preclearance at YTZ.

AC and WS can oppose all they want, but if LAX, FLL, and MCO come into play, eventually you get to a tipping point.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 187):
Quoting ytz (Reply 183):
And apparently their investors are actually willing to fork over $2.3 billion to buy 30 CS100s.

No they are not.

But maybe Ilyushin Finance in Russia might. They can't lease planes to Russian operators, but elsewhere...
And, it's possible they might be eligible for Ex-Im financing.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2013-04-11 18:29:14 and read 7315 times.

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 189):
I dont think (correct me if I am wrong ) that the 737 NG cannot comply with the YTZ noise requirements,

Spot the double negative !   
Sorry, many years of reviewing reports...

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: planemaker
Posted 2013-04-11 18:30:00 and read 7319 times.

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 189):
AC & WS are blowing smoke....

Of course they would rather not operate out of YTZ... for now they just want to raise the "noise" level to the point that there won't be a chance of the Tripartite Agreement being amended. But, if they have to, they will compete at YTZ.

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 189):
If I am PD and Im footing the bill for the runway extension, AC and WS would be paying up.

Porter doesn't pay for the runway extension.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 190):
But maybe Ilyushin Finance in Russia might. They can't lease planes to Russian operators, but elsewhere...And, it's possible they might be eligible for Ex-Im financing.

So much depends on so many things outside of Porter's control that there isn't a basis for any financial institution to commit to a "conditional" order.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2013-04-11 19:23:50 and read 7231 times.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 192):
Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 189):
If I am PD and Im footing the bill for the runway extension, AC and WS would be paying up.

Porter doesn't pay for the runway extension.

PD did, however, pay for the offset ILS approach at YTZ. So, in fairness and good commerce sense, if ACE currently and possible future WS use of YTZ, they are/will be paying for ILS landings.

It's not clear to me about who pays for the runway extension, if it happens. Possibly it might be one of those 'shovel ready jobs' things. I'd bet the Feds find some money to pay for it.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: brilondon
Posted 2013-04-11 20:16:04 and read 7154 times.

Quoting ytz (Reply 186):
Not as long as AC conspires with *A partner UA to oppose the request for preclearance at YTZ.

AC is not conspiring with UA or any other airline. They don't need to have a preclearance at YTZ to operate or not operate. All you need is an airline willing to fly the route and the authorities to agree. The governments are who wants these types of things and not the airlines. Yes, they may benefit from preclearance but they don't really have much say if there is any type of preclearance at the airport.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: BlueSky1976
Posted 2013-04-11 20:16:54 and read 7154 times.

It is always nice to see usual suspect, or the one usual suspect in this case, to belittle every CSeries order as much as possible. I, on the other hand, will always give my support to this aircraft and its every customer. Way to go, Porter.

To hell with NIMBYs.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: planemaker
Posted 2013-04-11 20:54:40 and read 7096 times.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 193):
PD did, however, pay for the offset ILS approach at YTZ. So, in fairness and good commerce sense, if ACE currently and possible future WS use of YTZ, they are/will be paying for ILS landings.

I have no doubt that if Porter "owned" the approach they would charge any user (just like they at the terminal).

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: ytz
Posted 2013-04-12 08:27:45 and read 6746 times.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 187):
No they are not.

I got my information from watching Deluce's interview on CBC. The reporter specifically asked him how he would finance the aircraft and he said his investors were willing to help.

Where did you get your information that they investors aren't willing to chip in?

Quoting planemaker (Reply 188):
As I said earlier, Porter is just opening up a big can of worms... Air Canada, WestJet want in on Toronto Island airport if Ottawa approves Porter plan

Please. They just want to raise the bogeyman of being able to fly in larger aircraft so they can scuttle any negotiations. If Porter is smart, they'll get ahead of the game and propose strict noise regulations, that incidentally limit operation to aircraft as quiet or quieter than the CS100.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 190):
If this proposal by PD goes ahead (possibly a big IF), GA and particularly LGA could be banished to Buttonville, as long as it exists, or Oshawa. At least they could land right beside a golf course.

General aviation should be booted from the Island. YTZ is an abosolutely valuable piece of infrastructure that offers substantial econonmic benefit to this city. There is no point wasting that resource on General Aviation. If they get rid of GA, they can actually go up to maybe 300 slots a day while still having fewer aircraft movements, with less noise to annoy nearby residents. They would also be able to shrink the airport footprint to one runway, while expanding the airport terminal and offering more ramp space and new hangars for Porter. In effect, the whole southern end of the airport could be returned to the city as park land. 15/33 is mostly used by GA anyway.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 190):
AC and WS can oppose all they want, but if LAX, FLL, and MCO come into play, eventually you get to a tipping point.
Quoting brilondon (Reply 194):
AC is not conspiring with UA or any other airline. They don't need to have a preclearance at YTZ to operate or not operate. All you need is an airline willing to fly the route and the authorities to agree.

I seem to recall that it was United or Continental who actually made a submission to the State Department opposing the request for preclearance at YTZ. So these things do matter. I don't think they'll just reach a tipping point and it'll happen. They'll have to fight for it. Preclearance means flights to LaGuardia and Washington Reagan. Competitors in the US and Canada will fight hard to make sure that doesn't happen.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 195):
It is always nice to see usual suspect, or the one usual suspect in this case, to belittle every CSeries order as much as possible.

He might not get his cheque if he doesn't. We should pity him. Hard to make a living this way.

This thread also has a few Air Canada trolls. They're praying hard for Porter to fail.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: yyz717
Posted 2013-04-12 09:31:36 and read 6642 times.

Quoting ytz (Reply 197):
General aviation should be booted from the Island.

Full agreement there. A busy downtown commercial airport is no place for GA making noise and congestion worse, whether GA was there first or not.

Quoting ytz (Reply 197):
I seem to recall that it was United or Continental who actually made a submission to the State Department opposing the request for preclearance at YTZ. So these things do matter. I don't think they'll just reach a tipping point and it'll happen. They'll have to fight for it. Preclearance means flights to LaGuardia and Washington Reagan. Competitors in the US and Canada will fight hard to make sure that doesn't happen.

CO was awarded 16 slots for YTZ-EWR service and then declined/released them. Presumably they made their submission opposing preclearance afterwards. YTZ already handles more x-border traffic than at least airport with pre-clearance (YWG) and maybe others. The problem is that there is no US carrier operating into YTZ that would benefit from pre-clearance -- just PD. Why should the US provide the expense of another pre-clearance airport in Canada just to support a Canadian carrier? The TPA should be marketing YTZ to USEx (PHL) or UAEx (EWR or CLE). Those carriers could lobby for pre-clearance at YTZ before or after commencing service.

Quoting ytz (Reply 197):
This thread also has a few Air Canada trolls. They're praying hard for Porter to fail.

PD's confident expansion plans suggest that their current Q400 operation is producing sound operating margins. I doubt failure is an option anymore. Might be time for them to pray for something else.....

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: longhauler
Posted 2013-04-12 09:53:17 and read 6599 times.

Quoting ytz (Reply 197):

This thread also has a few Air Canada trolls. They're praying hard for Porter to fail.

This is a very odd thing to say. I assume you include me in your "troll" list, as you accused me of almost that at the start of the thread. But you are incorrect.

I don't think people (AC or otherwise) are "praying for Porter to fail" as much as they are looking for proof that they are not.

Without the "proof" of public financial statements, it is all just speculation. Looking in the past, we have Westjet during a due dillgence inspection of Porter's "books" declines purchasing them. Then we have a failed IPO. (Someone said there were two failed IPOs, but I only recall one). It makes one wonder what is really lurking in the fine print of Porter ... again, all speculation.

By your assessment of me, I should also be "praying for Westjet to fail". Again incorrect. In fact, I often use Westjet as an example of how an airline should be run. Not just because of their financial results, solid as they are, but because of their employees. They are all generally happy. To me, one goes with the other ... make your employees happy, and it will show on the bottom line.

Personally, I would love to point at Porter as another example. As I have always been a fan of "boutique" airlines. But those "boutique" airlines always seem to fail. Porter owes its apparent success to its virtual monopoly of YTZ and a huge Canadian market base as a result. Nothing else. Yes, they have cool ads, good on-board service, and 1950's uniforms ... but that wasn't necessary, they could have done anything with a YTZ monopoly and been successful. Or are they?

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: ytz
Posted 2013-04-12 11:04:49 and read 6473 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 199):
I assume you include me in your "troll" list, as you accused me of almost that at the start of the thread. But you are incorrect.

I most certainly don't include you in the list. In fact you are on my RU list. Just so you know.

We may disagree from time to time, but I certainly respect your opinion and wisdom.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: ytz
Posted 2013-04-12 11:15:27 and read 6446 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 199):
Looking in the past, we have Westjet during a due dillgence inspection of Porter's "books" declines purchasing them.
Quoting longhauler (Reply 199):
Or are they?

This is kind of "casting aspersions" that I dislike, personally. So Westjet didn't buy them, that means they are failing? Could it be that they might have been profitable, but just not profitable enough for Westjet to snap up? Or perhaps after looking at the books that Westjet realize there was simply more potential with its own operation at YYZ?

It's quite the stretch to go from "Westjet saw the books and declined to buy" to "Porter is failing".

Quoting longhauler (Reply 199):
Yes, they have cool ads, good on-board service, and 1950's uniforms ... but that wasn't necessary, they could have done anything with a YTZ monopoly and been successful.

1) That's what I love about Porter. They didn't have to do any of those things. But they did.

2) I have zero issues with Porter's monopoly because we all know that if they weren't there, Air Canada would not be there either. I would have loved for Air Canada to have turned the place into a mini-London City. But AC can't be bothered with YTZ (for very good reasons).

3) As a 416 resident and taxpayer I'm quite happy. Pearson sends all its PILT payments to Mississauga. YTZ sends them to the City of Toronto. And I'm also glad that the Toronto Port Authority has gone from a federal moneypit to becoming a net contributor.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: ytz
Posted 2013-04-12 11:22:15 and read 6501 times.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 198):
The TPA should be marketing YTZ to USEx (PHL) or UAEx (EWR or CLE). Those carriers could lobby for pre-clearance at YTZ before or after commencing service.

They aren't stupid. I doubt they want to useful idiots and enable Porter.

Now, maybe if Porter can strike up a deal with some American carrier to act as a feeder and not compete on some route into the Island. Maybe then. US/AA or B6 or VA or maybe DL would be great here.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: brilondon
Posted 2013-04-12 11:37:15 and read 6471 times.

Quoting ytz (Reply 202):
They aren't stupid. I doubt they want to useful idiots and enable Porter.

Now, maybe if Porter can strike up a deal with some American carrier to act as a feeder and not compete on some route into the Island. Maybe then. US/AA or B6 or VA or maybe DL would be great here.


I respectfully disagree with you. I can't see PD becoming a feeder airline when all those airlines have a feeder system except B6 which seems to be handling them selves and would probably rather go to YYZ for better markets if B6 even wants to come to Toronto. The other airlines already serve Toronto at YYZ, why would they want to also serve Toronto from YTZ. Once the Metrolinx rail link to downtown is completed there will not be a real demand for flights to YTZ except for those already there.

Would there be room at the present Terminal at YTZ for the increase in traffic, or will the terminal have to be expanded.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YYZYYT
Posted 2013-04-12 13:25:51 and read 6339 times.

Don't know if this has been posted yet, but I just received an email from Porter, which appears to be the same as the one they've been running in local papers...

to quote:

"Change is in the air at Porter

Six years ago, Porter took off for the first time. Now, we've listened to you and we’d like to add new destinations to our network starting in 2016, such as Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, California, Florida and the Caribbean - alongside your favourite existing routes served by our current fleet.

To do this, we’re planning to add brand new planes to our fleet – the Canadian-built Bombardier CS100, the world’s quietest commercial jet in production, comparable to our current planes.

It’s our biggest change since launching. We’re doing it to increase your choice and affordability. And, with our choice of planes, we’ll protect the environment, boost the economy and make flying with Porter even more pleasurable.

Find out more about Porter's plans for change at porterplans.com"


It links to this page, that includes an new route map....

https://www.porterplans.com/

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YTZ
Posted 2013-04-12 13:45:23 and read 6311 times.

http://read.thestar.com/#!/article/5...shows-47-of-torontonians-want-jets

It just got interesting. Plurality of residents support expansion and allowing jets. Support is highest among downtown residents. And most residents say YTZ is more convenient than YYZ.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-04-12 14:12:50 and read 6265 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 158):
If 4000' is good enough for London City, it's good enough for initial CS100 operations off of Bishop.

The LCY runway is 4948 ft, (not 4000 ft.),roughly the same length as the longest YTZ runway after PD's proposed extension.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-04-12 14:36:23 and read 6228 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 206):
http://www.lcacc.org/operations/operations.html

In the Runway section, the take off length available for LCA is listed as 3934ft...almost exactly the same as YTZ.

That means the wheels on the ground part of the takeoff. The clearway and the displaced threshold are part of the total runway length but not deemed usable for normal takeoff operations.

The total runway length including displaced thresholds for YTZ, is around 4600 ft.

So, the current thresholds would be used for normal aircraft operations, and the extensions would mostly be over run areas. The extensions would still be within the current marine exclusion zone boundaries.

[Edited 2013-04-12 14:51:57]

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YXD172
Posted 2013-04-12 16:18:19 and read 6139 times.

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 189):


"He said his operations staff have already done calculations, and he believes WestJet could even land its 737s on the Island with a reduced capacity of 106 passengers if the runway is indeed extended to 5,100 feet as Porter’s plan proposes."-Gregg Saretsky

Any why not, SDU only has 1323m (4341 ft) of runway and currently sees A319s, 738s, and E190s (granted, the longest route is 917mi, but that covers anywhere from YWG to YHZ, especially if YTZ's runway is slightly longer). So is there a technical reason that YTZ couldn't see larger traffic?

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: ElPistolero
Posted 2013-04-12 16:54:39 and read 6077 times.

Okay, the edit tool has started acting up again.

But in response to Longhauler, I don't think its down to just having a Toronto City Airport monopoly.

AC had one too. After it drove Sky Express or City Express or whatever the name of that airline was out of business. What did AC do then?

Nothing.

After knocking out the competition it offered minimal service to Toronto City and consolidated operations at Pearson. Why should anyone believe that its interests in Toronto City Airport these days is about serving the market, and not about driving Porter out of business before consolidating at Pearson again?

Is AC making money of its YTZ routes?

[Edited 2013-04-12 17:00:19]

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: challengerdan
Posted 2013-04-12 17:12:36 and read 6060 times.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 209):

It would be surprising that AC makes any money out of YTZ. They are running at less than 40% seats filled from what I was told.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-04-12 17:16:59 and read 6053 times.

Quoting YXD172 (Reply 208):
So is there a technical reason that YTZ couldn't see larger traffic?

Noise is probably one reason. I have doubts that any current gen pure jet commercial aircraft can meet YTZ noise restrictions.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: infiniti329
Posted 2013-04-12 17:17:38 and read 6062 times.

Quoting YXD172 (Reply 208):
Any why not, SDU only has 1323m (4341 ft) of runway and currently sees A319s, 738s, and E190s (granted, the longest route is 917mi, but that covers anywhere from YWG to YHZ, especially if YTZ's runway is slightly longer). So is there a technical reason that YTZ couldn't see larger traffic?

1. Maybe a 737/319 would be able to technically take-off and land at YTZ, but will it will be a payload restriction. Which leads to the another question would it be able to do it profitably?

2. Can the 737 and/or 319 adhere to the noise requirements at YTZ, in my opinion no. The C-series is set to be slightly quieter the q400. The 737/319 cannot match that. Thats why I said WS and AC are blowing smoke..

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YXD172
Posted 2013-04-12 17:23:59 and read 6044 times.

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 212):

1. Maybe a 737/319 would be able to technically take-off and land at YTZ, but will it will be a payload restriction. Which leads to the another question would it be able to do it profitably?

Again, see SDU. Both JJ and G3 operate out of there with larger narrowbodies and have been doing so for a while - so I assume they're profitable.

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 212):

2. Can the 737 and/or 319 adhere to the noise requirements at YTZ, in my opinion no. The C-series is set to be slightly quieter the q400. The 737/319 cannot match that. Thats why I said WS and AC are blowing smoke..

So I guess PD just has to convince Torontonians to allow an amendment for jet operations, but not the noise restrictions. If they can work the system so only their jets (for the time being) are allowed, they're golden. I can see it working too.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: infiniti329
Posted 2013-04-12 17:34:11 and read 6024 times.

Quoting YXD172 (Reply 213):
Again, see SDU. Both JJ and G3 operate out of there with larger narrowbodies and have been doing so for a while - so I assume they're profitable

You are comparing apples to oranges.. just because a route can be done in Brazil with X equipment dosent mean it can be done with similar circumstances in Canada

Quoting YXD172 (Reply 213):
So I guess PD just has to convince Torontonians to allow an amendment for jet operations, but not the noise restrictions. If they can work the system so only their jets (for the time being) are allowed, they're golden. I can see it working too.

It may not take as much, as initially thought seems like alot of Torontonians are on their side already..

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013..._47_of_torontonians_want_jets.html

Keeping the noise restrictions is essential to keeping WS & AC mainline jets out of YTZ

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: brilondon
Posted 2013-04-12 17:44:34 and read 6017 times.

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 214):
It may not take as much, as initially thought seems like alot of Torontonians are on their side already..

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013..._47_of_torontonians_want_jets.html

Keeping the noise restrictions is essential to keeping WS & AC mainline jets out of YTZ

I don't think that all of Toronto are going to be in favour since they always have been in favour of the airport, it is just the residents of the Lake shore folks who have expensive condos along the harbour front. My ex neighbour who I still am in contact with told me that there is stiff opposition amongst the residents on the harbour front.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-04-12 20:20:17 and read 5812 times.

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 214):
Keeping the noise restrictions is essential to keeping WS & AC mainline jets out of YTZ

Keeping the same noise restrictions is the only way to get jet approval for YTZ and Porter isn't asking for any changes. Any proposed changes to this would sink the whole deal.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: longhauler
Posted 2013-04-12 20:23:02 and read 5813 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 216):
Keeping the same noise restrictions is the only way to get jet approval for YTZ and Porter isn't asking for any changes. Any proposed changes to this would sink the whole deal.

The restrictions are not noise restrictions, although so named, they are NOT JET restrictions.

For example, a Cessna Citation is far far quieter than a Cessna C185 on amphib floats. Guess which one is presently allowed!

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YTZ
Posted 2013-04-12 22:12:36 and read 5685 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 217):
The restrictions are not noise restrictions, although so named, they are NOT JET restrictions.

Correct.

But Deluce is no fool. Somehow, i don't think, they've proposed this without anticipating this. I suspect the TPA already has a draft of rules that address "community concerns about noise". He'll get great PR for proposing strict noise regulations, which AC and WS will have to oppose.

And in the end, nobody but AC and WS will complain when the TPA imposes noise restrictions based on decibels to address "community concerns".

It's going to deliciously ironic to have activists start defending Porter's stricter noise standards. And even more ironic to watch the TPA, community activists, etc. defend standards proposed by Porter if WS and AC try to take it court to sue for looser noise regs.

It's all coming to a theatre near you soon.

[Edited 2013-04-12 22:28:01]

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-04-12 22:26:40 and read 5679 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 217):

There are noise restrictions as well as jet restrictions. The tripartite specifically bans all types of jets, (except for a few exceptions including medivacs)...with turbo props being exempt.

The jet ban is under 'Special conditions".

http://www.torontoport.com/TorontoPo...al-1985-and-2003-amendments%29.pdf

Here is a draft report dealing with the noise limitations;

http://torontoport.com/TorontoPortAu...nmental/BBTCA_Noise_Assessment.pdf

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: czbbflier
Posted 2013-04-12 23:29:27 and read 5630 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 54):
Some wonder whether there is room for 2 large airlines in Canada, let alone 3. Look at Wardair. Service, never before seen and unlikely to be seen again, fares below both AC and CP. New aircraft, competing schedules ... and got its tail handed to it on a silver platter!

I would not dare to contradict what you say entirely but I would gently suggest that WD's frequency was seriously lacking. When I was with WD in YOW, AC and CP were battling it out on the YOW-YYZ route with hourly flights each. We had 16:15 and 23:30 arrivals and 6:30am and 17:20pm departures. Hardly competitive, I'd say. YYZ-YUL was pretty much the same- maybe they had three flights M-F instead of two... compared to AC and CP's two-dozen each.

Plus, WD desperately needed those MD-92s but haemorrhaged cash running empty A310s all over the place.


MEANWHILE... Am I missing something here about this Porter outfit? This talk of new planes flying out of an airport that doesn't currently allow them, to fly to places where the plane doesn't have enough range based on the size of the runways at this same airport, "busting hubs" where hubs don't really exist, just sounds like hubris to me.

Out West, the supposedly lauded 'Hail-Mary-destination' for these beloved CS100s, nobody has heard of Porter. Even to me, someone who follows the news but is horribly isolated out here in Vancouver and out of the industry to boot, sees Porter as a glorified City Express of the '80s.

And I'm sorry, but that doesn't say much for Porter. If * I * don't know who they are, then the average John Q Public- including most of Vancouver's business community which prefers its leisure flights on Alaska Airlines out of Bellingham to Maui and almost ALL of its long-haul business travel on AC with Aeroplan points- have absolutely not the slightest clue of its existence. I bet I could even find travel agents in Vancouver who have never heard of Porter. For Porter to have any success at all, it has got to raise its profile out here. Otherwise it is just a Toronto airline ferrying Toronto butts around. And as impressive as Toronto's Butts are, as well as impressive as Porter's LF might be, there are only so many Torontonian butts to fly around.

Out this way, WS is an airline that seemingly can do no wrong. Now that Westjet is adding a fleet of Q400s they'll be expanding their network even deeper into the West's more backwater-ish places. Their Encore fleet and brand will be deeply entrenched long before Bombardier even gets around to painting Porter's very first jet. Air Canada won't be taking Encore's advances sitting down and they too will be jockeying for Western butts long before Porter has its extended runway at YTZ. It seems to me the two established carriers out here have the business and leisure markets pretty much sewn up. The newcomer has absolutely no profile and no 'in'. That doesn't seem like a winning proposition to me. Following Longhauler's example, Wardair at least had profile, experience, and roots out West. Porter's got nuthin. Nuthin' at all. Not so much as a baggage tag.

Finally, I see Porter's use of YTZ as a 'hub' to be a serious mis-calculation. I fail to see how Porter, which is not a member of * A or OW or ST, will be able to connect with any international carriers. Even if it did join up with, say AF/KL, what good is flying into YTZ? It's not like AF is going to drop into YTZ with an A380- even if it does meet noise level requirements, for the connections. Would that mean that a YWG passenger would have to fly YWG to YTZ and then on to YUL to connect? Or would Porter offer a shuttle between YTZ and YYZ? What kind of interline connection minimums would that entail and might that passenger just fly AC or WS to avoid the hassle?

I am very excited for Porter, whoever, whatever it is. I am very excited for BBD and the naming of a real-live airline that will put its name on the brand-spanking-new C Series aircraft. There's certainly a lot of hype and hysteria around this in this thread. I just don't see why. Apart from it all being hubris, it doesn't make any sense to me.

So I ask again- am I missing something?

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: gmonney
Posted 2013-04-13 05:06:12 and read 5460 times.

Quoting ezalpha (Reply 93):
Fact is, the whole east side of Toronto might as well not exist. Its a nightmare getting to Pear there for a morning flight and the parking costs just add insult to injury.

I know i am going to be throwing this into Left field, but I still think there is potential for the Pickering Airport, York Region is growing at a very high rate and for the abundance of people traveling south on the 404 going 15 east vs. 15 west to YYZ makes no difference. As well, with YKZ closing there is a huge opportunity to make a great airport with a strong GA presence.

G

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YYZYYT
Posted 2013-04-13 11:15:07 and read 5080 times.

Quoting czbbflier (Reply 220):
Out West, the supposedly lauded 'Hail-Mary-destination' for these beloved CS100s, nobody has heard of Porter. Even to me, someone who follows the news but is horribly isolated out here in Vancouver and out of the industry to boot, sees Porter as a glorified City Express of the '80s.

And why, precisely, would Porter be known out west when they don't fly there? I can assure you that people in Quebec, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland came to know Porter quite well (and quickly) after it launched to those destinations.

The lure of YTZ is significant, for the business / downtown community; and my experience with the downtown "suit" crowd is that many don't care about alliances or points, they go for convenience or competitive airfares. Certainly enough to keep Porter going to this point.

The convenience is something which travellers out west will no doubt consider when the opinion is offered to them as a non-stop with PD's good service... (previously an impossibility).

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: multimark
Posted 2013-04-13 12:42:17 and read 4959 times.

Quoting ytz (Reply 197):
This thread also has a few Air Canada trolls. They're praying hard for Porter to fail.

LOL, I guess commercial aviation realists are now "AC Trolls" And with a user handle like YTZ, you are no doubt impartial.

It also amazes me that adults who follow commercial aviation really believe someone has found the secret formula of breaking even with sub-50% loads. You think publicly traded carriers could have figured that one out by now too.  

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-04-13 13:39:48 and read 4888 times.

Quoting multimark (Reply 227):
It also amazes me that adults who follow commercial aviation really believe someone has found the secret formula of breaking even with sub-50% loads. You think publicly traded carriers could have figured that one out by now too.

Actually, they're claiming mid to high 50's...and the load factor was 62.1 for 2012. My guess; the secret is to keep expenses lower than revenue.

It's also helps to not have decades of legacy expenses to carry, to not land at Pearson, one of the most expensive airports on the planet, and to have a modern fleet well suited to the route network.

The fact is nobody knows if they'll get the tripartite amended, but if they do, they can, (not necessarily will), make the CS100 work off of YTZ.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-04-13 14:40:54 and read 4822 times.

Quoting czbbflier (Reply 220):
Quoting longhauler (Reply 54):
Some wonder whether there is room for 2 large airlines in Canada, let alone 3. Look at Wardair. Service, never before seen and unlikely to be seen again, fares below both AC and CP. New aircraft, competing schedules ... and got its tail handed to it on a silver platter!

I would not dare to contradict what you say entirely but I would gently suggest that WD's frequency was seriously lacking. When I was with WD in YOW, AC and CP were battling it out on the YOW-YYZ route with hourly flights each. We had 16:15 and 23:30 arrivals and 6:30am and 17:20pm departures. Hardly competitive, I'd say. YYZ-YUL was pretty much the same- maybe they had three flights M-F instead of two... compared to AC and CP's two-dozen each.

Wardair never attempted to compete with AC and CP in strong business markets like YYZ-YUL and YYZ-YOW. The A310 wasn't the right aircraft to do that. Had WD not cancelled their orders for MD-80s and Fokker 100s they no doubt would have used those aircraft to give AC and CP more competition in the shorthaul markets. Their minimal service you mention was mainly to provide connections to longhaul flights at YYZ.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: planemaker
Posted 2013-04-13 22:38:44 and read 4599 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 207):
In the Runway section, the take off length available for LCA is listed as 3934ft...almost exactly the same as YTZ.

As pointed out earlier, it is even BBD's execs that say otherwise...

Quote:
Bombardier president Pierre Beaudoin told reporters after a luncheon speech to the Montreal Council on Foreign Relations Tuesday that the runway at the island airport is not long enough, at 4,000 feet, to accommodate the CSeries.

"We need a little more than that," he said. London City Airport, also a stone's throw from the city centre, features a 4,800-foot runway — exactly what Bombardier's own specs require for the CS100 110-seat model to take off with a full load of passengers and fuel.

But even at London City, the CSeries' projected range is cut in half to 1,500 nautical miles when taking into account passenger and fuel loads.
Quote:
Marc Duchesne, Bombardier spokesman, acknowledged the runway at Billy Bishop was too short to accommodate the CSeries at this point.

It is ASDA that is the important number, not TORA which you use. Several pax jets have TORA's of under 4,000 feet.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-04-13 23:53:21 and read 4596 times.

As I understand it, the TORA is the maximum amount of wheels on tarmac runway available for takeoff. ASDA, is the maximum runway available for aborting a takeoff....which allows for use of the thresholds. You can't use the thresholds when planning a takeoff. They are for emergency use only.

That means the effective runway length for planning a route is just under 4000'. The LCA expansion will not lengthen the runway, it will add taxiways so planes wouldn't have to backtrack the entire length of the runway.

Besides, Even the ASDA length is less than 4400'. Bishop has about 4600' of runway if you count the thresholds.

If you notice from your quote, Beaudoin isn't giving the LCA runway length, it's the reporter.

Perhaps I have it all wrong...maybe an actual professional pilot can chime in.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 226):
Several pax jets have TORA's of under 4,000 feet.

True...that, and complying with the steep approach angel, as well as other restrictions, is why they can fly to LCA. If you look at the LCA operations link I provided, under "Limitations of Aircraft Movements', there is a long list of aircraft which have been approved for LCA operations.

All aircraft have to be approved for LCA ops on an individual basis. Just being able to take off in 4000' isn't enough.

That doesn't mean they would automatically be allowed to use Posted 2013-04-14 01:44:13 and read 4540 times.

Quoting YYZYYT (Reply 222):
And why, precisely, would Porter be known out west when they don't fly there?

How true. I just wonder how long and how much it will cost to get people to know Porter and more importantly, book Porter.

Quoting YYZYYT (Reply 222):
The convenience is something which travellers out west will no doubt consider when the opinion is offered to them as a non-stop with PD's good service... (previously an impossibility).

That kind of leads to my point: whose convenience? For the outbound downtown traveller who has to nip into the backwoods for a meeting before returning to the office this makes sense certainly. For the inbound frequent traveller who conducts business exclusively in downtown Toronto this might make sense. The trouble is, there are only so many outbound travellers like that and as for the inbound travellers, we ain't too bright out here... I don't see it so much as institutional resistance, rather plain dumb repetitive motion- "it's what we booked last time so we'll book it again".

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 225):
Wardair never attempted to compete with AC and CP in strong business markets like YYZ-YUL and YYZ-YOW.

That was kind of my point to Longhauler's argument that WD's schedules were competitive. WD missed the lion's share of the lucrative market by failing to compete seriously in the Golden Triangle market.

And for the record, WD did try its best. We offered coffee, juice and pastries for the 6:30 flight. WD advertised in the Citizen now and again. However in the end, you're absolutely correct, the flights from YOW and YUL were merely connections to transcons. (Maybe a cheaper place to overnight an A310.)

Back to the topic... I still see this all as hubris. It's my opinion, but I'm really open to learning how this proposal is real considering the 'ifs' in the plan.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-04-14 02:55:42 and read 4511 times.

Quoting czbbflier (Reply 228):
How true. I just wonder how long and how much it will cost to get people to know Porter and more importantly, book Porter.

Mostly what they'll need are competitive ticket prices. Except for those totally committed to a frequent flyer program, and those who just hate the other guys, price will decide what seats get filled.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: longhauler
Posted 2013-04-14 05:51:51 and read 4428 times.

Quoting czbbflier (Reply 228):
That was kind of my point to Longhauler's argument that WD's schedules were competitive. WD missed the lion's share of the lucrative market by failing to compete seriously in the Golden Triangle market.

As noted above, that wasn't going to happen until the delivery of the MD88s and F100s.

However, CP started its Canadian Shuttle service to compete with Air Canada's Rapidair. There were hourly flights with more during peak periods. "Business Centres" were in each lounge at YYZ, YOW and YUL, along with coffee and pastries. On board, there were snacks and meals served on china.

How much market share did CP gain with this service? None, nada, nothing, PFA. It was one of Barbara Amster's biggest errors. (She was the marketing specialist on loan from AA). Until then, no one had any idea just how loyal Rapidair's customers were to Rapidair!

I don't think Wardair would have fared any better.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: multimark
Posted 2013-04-14 10:48:17 and read 4282 times.

Quoting czbbflier (Reply 228):
How true. I just wonder how long and how much it will cost to get people to know Porter and more importantly, book Porter.
Quoting czbbflier (Reply 228):
And for the record, WD did try its best. We offered coffee, juice and pastries for the 6:30 flight. WD advertised in the Citizen now and again. However in the end, you're absolutely correct, the flights from YOW and YUL were merely connections to transcons. (Maybe a cheaper place to overnight an A310.)

Anybody who has ever picked up a Toronto newspaper knows that Porter spends an eyepopping boatload of money on advertising. I guess they save enough with those low wages of theirs to be able to invest so much more in promotion than WS and AC  

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YTZ
Posted 2013-04-14 16:07:23 and read 4067 times.

Quoting czbbflier (Reply 228):
I still see this all as hubris.

I really wonder if you know the dictionary definition of the word. It would have been hubris if they placed a firm order. Placing a conditional order with several conditions and proposing an expansion is hardly hubristic. It smacks of reasonable caution to me.

They are only buying planes if council authorizes the expansion. If not they won't.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YTZ
Posted 2013-04-14 16:19:16 and read 4061 times.

Quoting czbbflier (Reply 228):
The trouble is, there are only so many outbound travellers like that and as for the inbound travellers, we ain't too bright out here... I don't see it so much as institutional resistance, rather plain dumb repetitive motion- "it's what we booked last time so we'll book it again".

Meh. People made the same argument when Porter launched. Yet, here we are, years late. And Porter has a growing following. Porter isn't just for those heading to the core. YTZ is accessible from anywhere in the 416 by transit in 1.5 hrs or thereabouts. Can't say the same for Pearson. Cab rides are cheaper too if you are in the 416.

If you're flying in from Vancouver and heading to a meeting at Yonge/Sheppard. Depending on the time of day it would actually be faster to land at YTZ and subway up. Heck, of a lot cheaper too.

For me, it's not so much that I'm a fan of Porter as I am a fan of YTZ. Marvellous little airport.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: brilondon
Posted 2013-04-14 17:09:20 and read 4005 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 230):
How much market share did CP gain with this service? None, nada, nothing, PFA. It was one of Barbara Amster's biggest errors. (She was the marketing specialist on loan from AA). Until then, no one had any idea just how loyal Rapidair's customers were to Rapidair!

I don't think Wardair would have fared any better.

You have to wonder about what really was the attraction of those services other than convenience of schedule. I believe that it is still the same today, the flights only being about a hour or so, there is very little room for the luxuries such as a meal on the flight except a sandwich. I used those flights about 15 years ago and really did not need all the frills, just needed to be YUL and on my way to meetings and be able to get back to Toronto in the same day. That was typical back then when there was plenty of business between the two cities. Don't get me wrong, there is still plenty of business between the two cities but it seems to be less centralized in the CBD and more out in the outlying areas. I am thinking about Markham, Mississauga, and the rest of the 905 area where the bulk of the businesses are locating these days. YTZ is not that convenient. Also there are more than just people from Toronto flying from YYZ and I would be willing to bet that more of the people travelling from YYZ don't live in downtown Toronto.

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YTZ
Posted 2013-04-15 06:45:30 and read 3697 times.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 234):
I am thinking about Markham, Mississauga, and the rest of the 905 area where the bulk of the businesses are locating these days.

The bulk of the region's GDP and the largest proportion of its employment (particularly the highest paying kind) is still centred in the 416 and specifically around Bay St. That's not me talking. That's Stats Canada. And this is self-evident. Where do you think all those GO trains, GO buses and subways are going every morning?

Moreover, the type of employment that lends itself to regular short-haul and expensive long-haul is far more likely to be hosted in the core than in the 'burbs. How many company funded trips is your average factory worker working at Ford in Oakville or GM in Oshawa going to make, compared to a lawyer or accountant working for a major firm?

And if they are working in the core, where do you think they'll want to fly from? You think they want to run home to Mississauga after a morning meeting, right before they jet off to Ottawa? Or would they prefer to head off to their flight and then be back downtown in time to catch the GO train home, right after dropping their meeting notes off at the office? That's what makes YTZ convenient. Those who suggest this little gem is not convenient either don't live/work in the GTA or have never done actual business in Toronto.

And that's just one direction (residing/working in Toronto). If you work in mining in Sudbury, there's only a very slim chance that you are going to meet your major investors and backers in Mississauga. I'd say there's a much stronger chance that you'll be meeting them somewhere around Bay/Wellington.

[Edited 2013-04-15 06:58:36]

[Edited 2013-04-15 07:20:42]

Topic: RE: Porter To Order C-Series
Username: YTZ
Posted 2013-04-15 07:06:12 and read 3673 times.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 234):
Also there are more than just people from Toronto flying from YYZ and I would be willing to bet that more of the people travelling from YYZ don't live in downtown Toronto.


Self-evident statement. To start with most of the population doesn't live downtown. And YYZ is a hub for two national airlines connecting travellers from everywhere. Ipso facto, most of those flying from YYZ don't live downtown. But that's really irrelevant to the greater discussion. There will never be more people flying from YTZ than YYZ. I don't get the relevance of your point. If Porter is a good business, they care about yield, not volume. You can make more money flying planes half-full with stock brokers who carry nothing but a briefcase and overnight bag than flying vacationers who pack suitcases worth of flip-flops and then book the lowest fare on Expedia or Travelocity. If Air Canada, didn't think this, why would they be defending market share with a YTZ-YUL service? Obviously, their YYZ hub is good enough.

Further to this, I would argue that the downtown set has a much higher disposable income. And they are willing to spend that on travel, if the options are convenient enough. Lots of professional singles and DINKs downtown. Many don't have car and insurance payments. Nor do they don't spend hundreds of dollars commuting every month (which many a 905er who needs both GO and TTC passes does). And they'd rather fly to New York or Montreal for the weekend than drive up to a cottage.

Start by looking up houshold income stats, the marriage or co-habitation rates, and the percentage of population that has children in each ward. Virtually every stat sets up the downtown crowd as having the means to travel often, while the suburban crowd will make do with a 1-2 week getaway a year and that's providing mom and dad's two weeks off line up and there's some cheap deals on Expedia. Air Canada is catering to this group with Rouge. Porter can have a healthy business catering to the downtown set.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/