Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Porter Airlines Jets At Toronto YTZ Soon?  
User currently offlinenoise From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1777 posts, RR: 4
Posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 11265 times:

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/03/25...ommittee-debates-airport-expansion

Found this a pretty interesting development!

112 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineairportugal310 From Tokelau, joined Apr 2004, 3635 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 11069 times:

A great development I agree, although I guess I am not really aligned with this line here from the article:

Just before the failed vote, Ford complained bitterly about the lack of will to fast-track the expansion.

“We can get this done if it’s the will of council,” Ford says. “Unfortunately, we don’t have that will today.”


Is that, ummmm, the Canadian version of "bitterness" because I'm failing to see it in that that line?
(assuming the line is the supposed bitterness the article refers to, because it isn't...)



I sell airplanes and airplane accessories
User currently offlineatcsundevil From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 1205 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 10950 times:

Quoting airportugal310 (Reply 1):
Is that, ummmm, the Canadian version of "bitterness" because I'm failing to see it in that that line?

What the article didn't say was that the mayor yelled this statement at the journalists, then tackled a councilman. (kidding, of course...at least I hope so, since he's already done both of those things)

I think this is great news for Porter and for the city. Provided the expansion is done sensibly and in a controlled manner -- which it appears be doing -- YTZ and YYZ can compliment each other well, just like DCA/IAD and LCY/LHR. I'm glad to see they are open to the expansion in the interest of business and improved infrastructure, unlike London with LHR's badly needed expansion. I'm sure residents in the affected areas aren't happy, but I'd have to assume that a CS100 on a steep approach would be preferable to a Q400. Any noise impact should definitely be outweighed by the benefit to the city by allowing larger jet aircraft that comply with the noise restrictions.


User currently offlineKarlB737 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3105 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 10533 times:

Here is the writeup from the Toronto Globe & Mail. It looks like both mayoral candidates are against the idea of expansion.

Toronto To Allow Talks On Expansion Of Billy Bishop Airport

"Two leading mayoral candidates have already come out against the proposal. John Tory called for a fast deferral, while Olivia Chow pressed for a prompt rejection. And a group of councillors is expected to try to impose a ban on jets at council, or “receive” the report – which would put the whole matter on the shelf."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...airport-expansion/article17676423/


User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16259 posts, RR: 56
Reply 4, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 10293 times:

I was one of about 120 Torontonians who gave a deputation yesterday. I argued (briefly, with my 3 minute slot) strongly in favour of the runway extension and the allowance of the CS-100.

The executive committee (12 of the 45-member council) voted last night in favour of the proposals by 11-1. Just 12 of the remaining 33 votes are needed to pass. Fingers crossed.

As a resident of Harbourfront (adjacent to YTZ) and an avid sailboat racer, I can vouch that there are absolutely no noise issues nor threats to the Waterfront by the Porter proposals.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently onlineJAGflyer From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 3527 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 10233 times:

As much as I hate to be the pessimist I have a hard time believing that YTZ will have the customers for longer-distance flights. Right now the airport is primarily utilized by passengers who live downtown or wealthy businesses. Porter is expensive and with companies continuing to cut business travel and reduce costs, it simply is not worth the extra $ just to leave/arrive downtown. YTZ as a transit point? Unless they open some restaurants, shops, and offer services I can't see the benefit to flying say YVR-YTZ-YHZ instead of going via YUL or YYZ.


Support the beer and soda can industry, recycle old airplanes!
User currently onlinecloudboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 828 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 10188 times:

Quoting JAGflyer (Reply 5):
As much as I hate to be the pessimist I have a hard time believing that YTZ will have the customers for longer-distance flights. Right now the airport is primarily utilized by passengers who live downtown or wealthy businesses. Porter is expensive and with companies continuing to cut business travel and reduce costs, it simply is not worth the extra $ just to leave/arrive downtown. YTZ as a transit point? Unless they open some restaurants, shops, and offer services I can't see the benefit to flying say YVR-YTZ-YHZ instead of going via YUL or YYZ.

Hardly. Most people in this area (New England) pretty much avoid going to Canada because it costs so much to get there. Driving takes too long and is a pain in the winter, and flights used to be way overpriced. Now at least you can afford to fly to Toronto, and fares to Montreal have dropped dramatically as well. Air Canada has to much control over YYZ, this gives another airline a shot. Maybe people will start visiting Canada now once they can get there.



"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26493 posts, RR: 75
Reply 7, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 10139 times:

Part of the problem is Rob Ford being for any of this.


Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlinejalarner From Canada, joined Apr 2007, 46 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 10136 times:

Edits got messed up a bit  Sad
Quoting JAGflyer (Reply 5):
Porter is expensive and with companies continuing to cut business travel and reduce costs, it simply is not worth the extra $ just to leave/arrive downtown.

All depends where you live. Friend of mine hopes on the streetcar and is there in a few mintes. I live in Milton, and before that Mississauga...I could be at Pearson in 10 minutes unless it is rush hour. Add $50-70 cab ride each way and I bet the downtown people would fly for a little more money rather than for a cab.

Quoting JAGflyer (Reply 5):
Unless they open some restaurants, shops, and offer services I can't see the benefit to flying say YVR-YTZ-YHZ instead of going via YUL or YYZ

Would that not be a positive for the expansion, showing economic growth and giving back, as opposed to just taking? Of course this would be a slow build as the demand increases.

Overall I am all for the expansion....but as I mentioned I do not live very close to the airport.

[Edited 2014-03-26 10:37:23]


Support air cadets!
User currently offlinerampbro From Canada, joined Nov 2012, 222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 9909 times:

Quoting JAGflyer (Reply 5):
Right now the airport is primarily utilized by passengers who live downtown or wealthy businesses. Porter is expensive and with companies continuing to cut business travel and reduce costs, it simply is not worth the extra $ just to leave/arrive downtown.

It certainly is worth the money, as Porter has proven through their expansion over the last decade. Toronto (especially the downtown area) is only getting wealthier, and the transfer to Pearson is only getting more time consuming and frustrating.

Quoting JAGflyer (Reply 5):
Unless they open some restaurants, shops, and offer services I can't see the benefit to flying say YVR-YTZ-YHZ instead of going via YUL or YYZ.

Not sure. With an airline like Porter that has an on-board service, there is no need to rely on concourse food and bev. As well, taxi times at Pearson during peak hours can get ridiculous. Add a need to de-ice and there's a 40 minute delay easy. Keep in mind that downtown Toronto is right there - an hour connection time at YTZ would be more than enough to get over to the Toronto 'mainland' and grab a bit. You could have decent visit to the HHOF with a 90 minute cnx.

I think its worth noting that once upon a time a bunch of NIMBYs didn't want a great bloody condo forest built on Toronto's harbour front. Now, many of the residents of those once-maligned buildings are perpetrating the same flawed concept.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 7):
Part of the problem is Rob Ford being for any of this.

Some serious, honest leadership and vision could go a long way, but sadly Ford has blown his chance(s) to provide this. This is not an unimportant project for the city, and failure to move forwards on this development due to political paralysis does not look good. Ford focussed too much on sports as a youth, and now everything is a football to him.

Quoting jalarner (Reply 8):
Would that not be a positive for the expansion, showing economic growth and giving back, as opposed to just taking?

Porter does not 'just take' - it delivers a critical service to major generators of value in Toronto, the importance of which cannot be understated. Primary effects aside, Porter supports all kinds of jobs in Toronto by being a major purchaser of Q400 aircraft.


User currently offlinejalarner From Canada, joined Apr 2007, 46 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 9833 times:

Quoting rampbro (Reply 9):
Porter does not 'just take' - it delivers a critical service to major generators of value in Toronto, the importance of which cannot be understated. Primary effects aside, Porter supports all kinds of jobs in Toronto by being a major purchaser of Q400 aircraft.

I should have been more clear on that. From all the nay-sayers it looks like take. A friend of mine works in Downsview. He used to be on the -8 line but now builds Globals.



Support air cadets!
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6186 posts, RR: 34
Reply 11, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 9739 times:

The Port Authority, a key player - obviously, is not totally onboard...

Port Authority doesn’t want ‘mini-Pearson,’ meeting on island airport hears

Quote:
“We have a very fine airport — Pearson airport. What we do have is a magnificent regional airport facility on the lake,” Wilson said (Port Authority CEO).

That is just one of the weakness in Porter's plan.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlinevio From Canada, joined Feb 2004, 1425 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 9019 times:

I don't see the issue with YTZ expanding for jet service. I don't know why some waterfront residents complain about the air traffic there (noise pollution), when the freeway is by far the loudest thing around. I have a friend who lives on the waterfront and all I can hear is traffic, sirens, etc. I can barely hear the Q400 coming in, and even that, only if I pay attention to it. I doubt an CS100 would be much louder. Hell, helicopter traffic and boat traffic is louder than that.

On a side, note, shame on Toronto and whoever ran that city for the past X years for not connecting the city with proper rail to YYZ... but someone seems to have a huge interest in the astronomical taxi prices from YYZ...



Superior decisions reduce the need for superior skills.
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6186 posts, RR: 34
Reply 13, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 8572 times:

Quoting vio (Reply 12):
I don't know why some waterfront residents complain about the air traffic there (noise pollution)

Don't think for a minute that waterfront residents don't complain about vehicle noise... there just isn't anything they can do about it. On the other hand, they can do something about airport noise.

And while the noise issue is valid for some people others clearly use it as a negative talking point even though it doesn't necessarily affect them all that deleteriously. But aircraft noise is not the only noise nor issue.

Putting the aircraft noise issue to the side, there are other "big" issues.

One is infrastructure costs. Not just to expand the runway at both ends but, far more critical from the public's perspective, are the "mainland" infrastructure costs which is reported to be $300 million. The source and spending of tax dollars, and whether that is the best cost/benefit spending of tax dollars, has to be resolved first.

Second is "mainland" vehicle congestion (and pollution and noise). Porter's conditional order & options for the CS100 eventually could replace the current Q400 fleet. That could represent an increase in pax numbers of close to 60%. So there is the legitimate opposition to the increase in traffic, noise and pollution on the "mainland side" that increased aircraft capacity represents.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineinfiniti329 From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 667 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 8381 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 13):
Second is "mainland" vehicle congestion (and pollution and noise). Porter's conditional order & options for the CS100 eventually could replace the current Q400 fleet

I dont see PD replacing the Q400 with the CS100. They will compliment each other

Quoting vio (Reply 12):
On a side, note, shame on Toronto and whoever ran that city for the past X years for not connecting the city with proper rail to YYZ... but someone seems to have a huge interest in the astronomical taxi prices from YYZ..

For a modern city like Toronto i think their transit system is sub par. With only 4 subway lines and commuter lines that run only during rush hour i think can do much better. The rail ink between union and pearson should have been done years ago.


Who owns the airport? I know the TPA operates it but was unsure it they were the actual owners.


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6186 posts, RR: 34
Reply 15, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 8117 times:

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 14):
I dont see PD replacing the Q400 with the CS100.

The airport is slot restricted. Going to a larger aircraft is the only way to increase pax numbers. As it is, because of the short runway, the Q400 can only be configured at 70 pax max.

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 14):
Who owns the airport? I know the TPA operates it but was unsure it they were the actual owners.

Yes, the TPA owns the airport.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineezalpha From Canada, joined Mar 2010, 33 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 8058 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JAGflyer (Reply 5):
As much as I hate to be the pessimist I have a hard time believing that YTZ will have the customers for longer-distance flights. Right now the airport is primarily utilized by passengers who live downtown or wealthy businesses. Porter is expensive and with companies continuing to cut business travel and reduce costs, it simply is not worth the extra $ just to leave/arrive downtown. YTZ as a transit point? Unless they open some restaurants, shops, and offer services I can't see the benefit to flying say YVR-YTZ-YHZ instead of going via YUL or YYZ.

Why be pessimistic? Be skeptical if you like, but time will tell. I don't agree with your assertion that people don't want an option for longer range flights. I live in Oshawa. Fact, I can leave my car at home and use public transit to get to YTZ. Can't do that from YYZ. I've flown to BOS and MDW on Porter and it was a pleasure. They know how to treat customers. I wouldn't consider doing that from Pearson. Long drive (I do it every day!), parking cost that borders on extortion and standing in endless lines, etc, etc.. Porter to Florida or the west coast can't come soon enough.


User currently offlinekl692 From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 676 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 7878 times:

AC will do everything in their power to make sure this doesn't go through.

KL692



A310, A330,A346,B73H, B747,B772,B77W,CRJ
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3375 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 7801 times:

Quoting atcsundevil (Reply 2):
Provided the expansion is done sensibly and in a controlled manner -- which it appears be doing -- YTZ and YYZ can compliment each other well, just like DCA/IAD and LCY/LHR.

It can, however I think that PD thinks that it is going to try an monopolize jet operations which I hope doesn't happen. Many US airlines as well as AC and WS might want to operate to YTZ and may order a few to launch YTZ.

Quoting JAGflyer (Reply 5):
As much as I hate to be the pessimist I have a hard time believing that YTZ will have the customers for longer-distance flights. Right now the airport is primarily utilized by passengers who live downtown or wealthy businesses

There are more and more young people living in the downtown core and if they offer flight to Florida, LAS, YVR and even Cuba or Mexico then they can get a market for tourism. I am not sure how high the yields will be however.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 7):
Part of the problem is Rob Ford being for any of this.

He represents residents of the cities who are no where near the airport so they can support the initiative without dealing with the consequences. Rob Ford may be the mayor of the city but he really has quite a bit of contempt for those who live downtown.

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 14):
For a modern city like Toronto i think their transit system is sub par. With only 4 subway lines and commuter lines that run only during rush hour i think can do much better. The rail ink between union and pearson should have been done years ago.

The rail link to YYZ should be complete for the Pan-Am games next year and yes the transit system is sub par and that is the biggest issue that will decide the municipal election in October.

Quoting cloudboy (Reply 6):
Air Canada has to much control over YYZ, this gives another airline a shot. Maybe people will start visiting Canada now once they can get there.

Calvin Rovinescu wrote an op-ed in the Toronto Star and welcomes PD to compete with AC at YYZ. Also US airlines are free to compete with AC at YYZ whenever they feel and if they feel that AC has too much control then by all means compete with them. We Canadians would welcome it!!



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4226 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 7791 times:

Quoting ezalpha (Reply 16):
Can't do that from YYZ.

I don't understand what you mean you can't take public transit to YYZ. The TTC serves the airport 24 hours a day. Yes it is not as convenient but they will have a direct rail link eventually, maybe.

I doubt that it will get passed through Toronto city council. They hate progress and don't want people coming to the downtown easily. Take the Gardiner for example as it is in desperate need of upgrading and expansion to alleviate the congestion that occurs every day between the hours of 4 am to about 9 pm during the week and then it is chaos on the weekends as that is when they either have it closed for something stupid or construction.

The other thing is that the residents that don't want the airport to be open at all are pretty powerful in terms of political clout on the council.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6186 posts, RR: 34
Reply 20, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 7591 times:

Quoting rampbro (Reply 9):
Some serious, honest leadership and vision could go a long way, but sadly Ford has blown his chance(s) to provide this.

It certainly didn't help Porter that Deluce went to see Ford privately without registering as a lobbyist before he announced his plans publicly. Secondly, because Deluce and other family members contributed to Ford's mayoral campaign, Ford's pushing for approval for Porter's plans obviously further taints the process.

Quoting ezalpha (Reply 16):
Porter to Florida or the west coast can't come soon enough.

As the TPA CEO said: “We have a very fine airport — Pearson airport. What we do have is a magnificent regional airport facility on the lake,” Wilson said .

There is nothing "regional" about Florida or the west coast.  
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 18):
if they offer flight to Florida, LAS, YVR and even Cuba or Mexico then they can get a market for tourism. I am not sure how high the yields will be however.

Of course, the principle rationale for the island airport disappears... convenient regional flights to Ottawa, Montreal, etc., where the time savings are significant compared to hiking out to YYZ. Flying to Florida or the west coast the time saving as a % of the total travel time becomes marginal... even less so if when the Pan-Am rail link to YYZ becomes operational.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineKLSMB From Canada, joined Jun 2011, 36 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 7405 times:

Quoting cloudboy (Reply 6):
Hardly. Most people in this area (New England) pretty much avoid going to Canada because it costs so much to get there. Driving takes too long and is a pain in the winter, and flights used to be way overpriced. Now at least you can afford to fly to Toronto, and fares to Montreal have dropped dramatically as well. Air Canada has to much control over YYZ, this gives another airline a shot. Maybe people will start visiting Canada now once they can get there.

Flight costs at all Canadian airports are overpriced because of Federal Government fees and regulations. This has been an issue as long as I can remember, and it's the only reason why flights from US airports often cost so much less. To solve this problem, there needs to be some dramatic changes made at the federal level, which I can't see happening anytime soon.

Your comment about Air Canada having too much control over YYZ is nonsense. Yes, Air Canada uses YYZ as it's primary hub and that surely gives them some bargaining power with the Greater Toronto Airports Authority. However, there are over 75 other airlines at Pearson and many of them are competing directly with Air Canada. This includes competition on almost all domestic routes within Canada, as well as many transborder and international routes, for example LHR, HKG, PEK, CDG, LAX, JFK, LGA, MIA, ORD, IAH, DTW and DFW to name just a few. If you look at the Toronto Pearson website, you'll see that there are routes operated by many airlines to destinations around the world that are not offered by Air Canada at all.


User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3375 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 7381 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 20):
Of course, the principle rationale for the island airport disappears... convenient regional flights to Ottawa, Montreal, etc., where the time savings are significant compared to hiking out to YYZ. Flying to Florida or the west coast the time saving as a % of the total travel time becomes marginal... even less so if when the Pan-Am rail link to YYZ becomes operational.

They have that already with their current fleet.

Porter absolutely wants in the want in on those intercontinental markets as well and that is exactly how they have been marketing their expansion if the runway in indeed extended.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6186 posts, RR: 34
Reply 23, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 7295 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 22):
They have that already with their current fleet.

Yes, that is what I've said.  
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 22):
Porter absolutely wants in the want in on those intercontinental markets as well and that is exactly how they have been marketing their expansion if the runway in indeed extended.

Yes, because they absolutely need those markets... but as the TPA CEO says - those markets are Pearson's raison d'etre.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25311 posts, RR: 22
Reply 24, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7244 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 18):
Quoting atcsundevil (Reply 2):
Provided the expansion is done sensibly and in a controlled manner -- which it appears be doing -- YYZ can compliment each other well, just like DCA/IAD and LCY/LHR.

It can, however I think that PD thinks that it is going to try an monopolize jet operations which I hope doesn't happen. Many US airlines as well as AC and WS might want to operate to YTZ.

Where will the slots come from for additional AC and new WS and US carrier services? They could only add service if PD cuts their flights. I can't see PD investing in a fleet of new jets if they have to reduce the number of flights. High frequency is a major advantage of PD's current service on their primary routes.

[Edited 2014-03-26 17:40:17]

User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6186 posts, RR: 34
Reply 25, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 7071 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 24):
Where will the slots come from for additional AC and new WS and US carrier services? They could only add service if PD cuts their flights.

If jets are allowed at the island, the slot issues, which PD now dominate, will become a hot issue. Previously, there had been little interest by AC other than for Montreal in using the Q400. Jets are another matter.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 24):
High frequency is a major advantage of PD's current service on their primary routes.

Frequency goes away with longer and transcon routes and the relatively small PD fleet.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16259 posts, RR: 56
Reply 26, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 6627 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 24):
Where will the slots come from for additional AC and new WS and US carrier services? They could only add service if PD cuts their flights.

Slots are allocated by the Toronto Port Authority. They can easily issue/release more slots.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlinebeatyair From Canada, joined Feb 2014, 32 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6085 times:

The expansion of the Toronto island airport is good news. But I still do not understand why the airport would extend the runway to both the east and the west? Looking at it, it should only be extended to the west(open water).

Porter's exclusive use of the Q400 on the island and getting all that business traffic has pushed both Air Canada and Westjet to buy the Q400 to get in on the action. Now that it looks like the airport expansion may go ahead. Porter's plan to fly the C-Series out of there is more likely now, may push Air Canada into its rumoured purchase of the C-Series. To again, get into the action.


User currently offlineinfiniti329 From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 667 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 6073 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 18):
It can, however I think that PD thinks that it is going to try an monopolize jet operations which I hope doesn't happen. Many US airlines as well as AC and WS might want to operate to YTZ and may order a few to launch YTZ

Slots were there. Only AC and PD applied for them. You snooze you loose.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 26):
They can easily issue/release more slots

I have read TPA has no intention increasing the number of slots they have now. Other airlines had fair and ample opportunity to pursue these slots just like AC and PD did. Dont come crying now if jets are allowed they had their shot.


User currently offlineatcsundevil From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 1205 posts, RR: 2
Reply 29, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 6029 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 18):
It can, however I think that PD thinks that it is going to try an monopolize jet operations which I hope doesn't happen. Many US airlines as well as AC and WS might want to operate to YTZ and may order a few to launch YTZ.

Which is exactly what needs to happen to make this whole thing work. Porter has had amazing success at YTZ and has been the driving force behind the airport's resurgence over the past several years, but if this expansion moves forward, the airport itself needs to move into a new phase as well -- one that includes multiple carriers and competitive services. Sometimes it feels like Porter treats it as "their" airport, and for a long time it has been. That attitude can't continue, and YTZ can't base its success or failure solely on one airline from this point forward. The addition of significant AC service along with WS and a handful of US airlines (provided they all meet the established noise standards, of course) as well as a US Preclearance facility would guarantee YTZ's future.


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4226 posts, RR: 1
Reply 30, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 6027 times:

Quoting KLSMB (Reply 21):
Flight costs at all Canadian airports are overpriced because of Federal Government fees and regulations. This has been an issue as long as I can remember, and it's the only reason why flights from US airports often cost so much less. To solve this problem, there needs to be some dramatic changes made at the federal level, which I can't see happening anytime soon.

That is not entirely true. The total cost is still quite competitive. I would use YYZ over JFK any day of the week and twice on weekends to compare airports. The comparison being the largest international gateway for each country. Now I get that it is like comparing apples to grapes but I still stand as the airports are for the largest cities in their respective countries.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16259 posts, RR: 56
Reply 31, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5936 times:

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 28):
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 26):
They can easily issue/release more slots

I have read TPA has no intention increasing the number of slots they have now. Other airlines had fair and ample opportunity to pursue these slots just like AC and PD did. Dont come crying now if jets are allowed they had their shot.

TPA has the authority to allocate new slots anytime.

They have publicly promised not to do so anytime soon, but in the interests of business development, this can change easily. If a US carrier or even another Canadian carrier (Bearskin, Pascan, for example) came forward requesting additional slots, TPA would be foolish to say no.

At any rate, from what I've heard frequently, the current (new) PD terminal at YTZ (from which all commercial pax ops are provided) is already exceeding capacity and is a bigger constraint than the current "lack" of slots.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6186 posts, RR: 34
Reply 32, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5921 times:

Quoting beatyair (Reply 27):
Porter's exclusive use of the Q400 on the island and getting all that business traffic has pushed both Air Canada and Westjet to buy the Q400 to get in on the action.

Not so.

Quoting beatyair (Reply 27):
To again, get into the action.

Not so.

Quoting atcsundevil (Reply 29):
Which is exactly what needs to happen to make this whole thing work. Porter has had amazing success at YTZ and has been the driving force behind the airport's resurgence over the past several years, but if this expansion moves forward, the airport itself needs to move into a new phase as well -- one that includes multiple carriers and competitive services. Sometimes it feels like Porter treats it as "their" airport, and for a long time it has been. That attitude can't continue, and YTZ can't base its success or failure solely on one airline from this point forward. The addition of significant AC service along with WS and a handful of US airlines (provided they all meet the established noise standards, of course) as well as a US Preclearance facility would guarantee YTZ's future.

The elephant in the room is that Porter is between a rock and a hard place... and that is what is driving the whole thrust for expansion at the island airport. If true competition is allowed on the island, Porter loses.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 31):
TPA has the authority to allocate new slots anytime.

That is governed by the Tripartite Agreement. The TPA cannot just allocate slots anytime.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlinenoise From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1777 posts, RR: 4
Reply 33, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5897 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 32):
The elephant in the room is that Porter is between a rock and a hard place... and that is what is driving the whole thrust for expansion at the island airport. If true competition is allowed on the island, Porter loses.

Care to explain? What rock and what hard place?


User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16259 posts, RR: 56
Reply 34, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5879 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 32):
The elephant in the room is that Porter is between a rock and a hard place... and that is what is driving the whole thrust for expansion at the island airport. If true competition is allowed on the island, Porter loses.

On what possible basis is PD between a rock and a hard place? PD is a privately held co and does not release financials, but it has a group of private backers who no doubt have a strong interest in their financials.

PD recently placed refundable deposits on 12 CS-100s. If PD was losing $, they would not have had the cash to make those deposits, nor would their private investors have approved the CS-100 order. Clearly, PD is doing well financially, or well enough to proceed with the capital investment associated with the CS-100 order.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6186 posts, RR: 34
Reply 35, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5830 times:

Quoting noise (Reply 33):
Care to explain? What rock and what hard place?

Porter has already made two failed attempts to go public, the first in 2010. The reason they require to go public is because that is how the original institutional investors: OMERS, EdgeStone Capital Partners, Borealis Infrastructure, GE Asset Management Incorporated and Dancap Private Equity Inc., cash out and recoup their investment.

With the failed previous attempts to go public, Porter had a "growth story" to try to sell investors on. Now, 4 years later they no longer have the "growth story" due to maxing out on capacity at the island airport coupled with increased competitiveness from Air Canada, and potentially WestJet.

It is imperative for Porter to create a "growth story" in order to be an attractive public investment and that is through an increase in pax and yield. And the only way for Porter to do so is to a) increase capacity from the seat limited Q400, and b) extend beyond the regional limit of the Q400. The only answer to a) & b) is the CS100.

So if jets are not allowed on the island Porter is pretty much "screwed" in the mid term.

The above is the rock. Now the hard place...

If jets are allowed, both Air Canada and WestJet will go all out to counter Porter... and the artillery that they can bring to bear in such a fight will severely impact Porter. So, again, Porter will not have a "growth story" to go to the public markets with.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 34):
PD recently placed refundable deposits on 12 CS-100s.

This is what Porter states: "Deluce has pushed for a swift decision because Porter must begin to put down non-refundable deposits beginning in April."

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 34):
Clearly, PD is doing well financially, or well enough to proceed with the capital investment associated with the CS-100 order.

They haven't proceeded with any capital investment yet and Deluce's statement above shows that they won't be making any "capital investments".



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineatcsundevil From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 1205 posts, RR: 2
Reply 36, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5605 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 32):
The elephant in the room is that Porter is between a rock and a hard place... and that is what is driving the whole thrust for expansion at the island airport. If true competition is allowed on the island, Porter loses.

I agree. Porter is in one hell of a dilemma, because they need to grow. For them to grow, the airport needs to expand, which opens the door to other airlines entering the fray as serious competitors. While that would be outstanding for the airport and for passengers, it's pretty terrible for Porter. They risk losing everything they've worked so hard to build, but the same result happens if growth becomes stagnant and the airport doesn't expand. The only way forward for them is to support the expansion, buy CS-100s, and fight tooth and nail to retain as much market share as possible just like every other airline in history.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25311 posts, RR: 22
Reply 37, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5591 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 26):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 24):
Where will the slots come from for additional AC and new WS and US carrier services? They could only add service if PD cuts their flights.

Slots are allocated by the Toronto Port Authority. They can easily issue/release more slots.

But how many additional flights can YTZ handle considering the size of the terminal and related facilities? I've used YTZ a few times and it doesn't look like there's much room for expansion, and when I was there virtually all gates were in use.

And wouldn't any increase in operations make the airport's opponents even more vocal?


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6186 posts, RR: 34
Reply 38, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 5540 times:

Quoting atcsundevil (Reply 36):
I agree. Porter is in one hell of a dilemma, because they need to grow.

  

Quoting atcsundevil (Reply 36):
They risk losing everything they've worked so hard to build, but the same result happens if growth becomes stagnant and the airport doesn't expand.

  

Quoting atcsundevil (Reply 36):
The only way forward for them is to support the expansion, buy CS-100s, and fight tooth and nail to retain as much market share as possible just like every other airline in history.

Even with light competition (they have a virtual monopoly on the island), ROI has been poor. Since the day they started Porter has been racing the clock to get an IPO done... and the clock hasn't been their friend. No one is going to invest in an IPO that doesn't have a compelling growth story... and unless jets are approved and all the infrastructure work on the airport and land side are in place there is not even a potential growth story.

And even if the jets are approved, as you say they would have to fight tooth and nail but they are bring a knife to a gun fight. And in addition to increased competition on the island there will be increased competition from YYZ when the Union Pearson rail link is completed for the Pan Am Games by 2015... before the first CS100 will even EIS.

Quote:
Snowbirds in downtown condos and offices will be able to walk the PATH in their shorts to Union Station, pull their bags along the Skywalk to the UP Express terminal, check in with their airline and board a train that leaves every 15 minutes. Twenty-five minutes later they will be inside the airport.

.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 37):
But how many additional flights can YTZ handle considering the size of the terminal and related facilities?

.
Right now, realistically, none.
.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 37):
I've used YTZ a few times and it doesn't look like there's much room for expansion, and when I was there virtually all gates were in use.

.
And the CS100 is a larger aircraft carrying ~60% more pax... so factor in all the infrastructure increase required.
.

.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 37):
And wouldn't any increase in operations make the airport's opponents even more vocal?

.
They are already waiting to jump on the noise made when the CS100 is using thrust reverser as it will be considerably noiser than the approach.

[Edited 2014-03-27 17:45:00]


Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlinenoise From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1777 posts, RR: 4
Reply 39, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5354 times:

Why does porter have to keep YTZ as their hub? Worst case scenario, can't they simply start focusing on YYZ or YOW in the event the YTZ expansion proposal is denied?

User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16259 posts, RR: 56
Reply 40, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5332 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 35):
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 34):
Clearly, PD is doing well financially, or well enough to proceed with the capital investment associated with the CS-100 order.

They haven't proceeded with any capital investment yet and Deluce's statement above shows that they won't be making any "capital investments".

Porter has already made REFUNDABLE deposits on the CS-100. The non-refundable deposits begin in April. Do you think the current investors would have approved the refundable deposits if PD did not have good financials?

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 37):
But how many additional flights can YTZ handle considering the size of the terminal and related facilities? I've used YTZ a few times and it doesn't look like there's much room for expansion, and when I was there virtually all gates were in use.

The terminal capacity is a bigger growth constraint than the slot issue, for sure.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6186 posts, RR: 34
Reply 41, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5294 times:

Quoting noise (Reply 39):
Why does porter have to keep YTZ as their hub? Worst case scenario, can't they simply start focusing on YYZ or YOW in the event the YTZ expansion proposal is denied?

Because they have a virtual monopoly on the island. If they move to Pearson they are up against not just Cdn carriers but American as well.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 40):
Porter has already made REFUNDABLE deposits on the CS-100.

If they had paid a "refundable deposit" (which no where is there ANY record or statement that they have) Deluce would not have stated:

Quote:
"Deluce has pushed for a swift decision because Porter must begin to put down non-refundable deposits beginning in April."

Quite obviously Deluce would be saying that their deposit becomes non-refundable in April... if they had paid one - which they didn't.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineinfiniti329 From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 667 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5160 times:

Quoting atcsundevil (Reply 29):
Sometimes it feels like Porter treats it as "their" airport, and for a long time it has been

They should. PD invested in the airport when no one else would. When it was a ugly duckling no one wanted any part of her but now she was swan everyone wants in. To bad I say.


User currently offlineatcsundevil From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 1205 posts, RR: 2
Reply 43, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5076 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 38):
Even with light competition (they have a virtual monopoly on the island), ROI has been poor. Since the day they started Porter has been racing the clock to get an IPO done... and the clock hasn't been their friend. No one is going to invest in an IPO that doesn't have a compelling growth story... and unless jets are approved and all the infrastructure work on the airport and land side are in place there is not even a potential growth story.

And even if the jets are approved, as you say they would have to fight tooth and nail but they are bring a knife to a gun fight. And in addition to increased competition on the island there will be increased competition from YYZ when the Union Pearson rail link is completed for the Pan Am Games by 2015... before the first CS100 will even EIS.

I know they've been trying for a while, but they really needed to get their IPO done a couple of years ago. They would have been so much better positioned. Now they're in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Their future is now contingent on the airport expansion and allowance of jet aircraft and a subsequent IPO, but attracting significant investment will be incredibly difficult because the expansion will bring in competition, which is something that Porter is in no condition to manage since they've never had to. It wouldn't make any sense to invest in a company that's potentially about to lose one half or more of its market share. If they can't attract investment, then the IPO fails. Then they've given up their monopoly and opened up the airport to more formidable competitors. Then they bleed a slow, agonizing death. Or something like that.

Well......that sucks.....

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 42):
They should. PD invested in the airport when no one else would. When it was a ugly duckling no one wanted any part of her but now she was swan everyone wants in. To bad I say.

Too bad, indeed. They opened this Pandora's box!


User currently offlinenoise From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1777 posts, RR: 4
Reply 44, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4955 times:

PD can easily start focusing on airports other than YTZ, such as YOW. I don't know what the obsession is with having YTZ their sole hub.

User currently onlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4982 posts, RR: 42
Reply 45, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4962 times:

Quoting noise (Reply 44):
PD can easily start focusing on airports other than YTZ, such as YOW. I don't know what the obsession is with having YTZ their sole hub.

PD's success is the location of YTZ with reference to Canada's largest city. Period.

Yes, they have good service, cool ads, free beer, etc ... but that is not the reason for their success.

If they started a focus hub where they did not have that monopoly, they would be just another airline. Time and time again, statistics have shown that people will not choose an airline because they have free beer and F/A's in 1950's uniforms. So they better bring their A game if they expect to compete with AC and WS!



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16259 posts, RR: 56
Reply 46, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4881 times:

Quoting noise (Reply 44):
PD can easily start focusing on airports other than YTZ, such as YOW. I don't know what the obsession is with having YTZ their sole hub.

Exactly. Or YHZ. As they are already doing on a limited basis.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 45):
PD's success is the location of YTZ with reference to Canada's largest city. Period.

Not "period", but primarily. PD moved into the YOW/YUL-YHZ markets after the Canjet withdrawal and seem to doing fine with these "non-YTZ" routes, including YHZ-YYT. As the PD brand becomes more established, it opens up opportunities for more markets, that may (or may not) begin and end with YTZ.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently onlinecloudboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 828 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4837 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 45):

PD's success is the location of YTZ with reference to Canada's largest city. Period.

Yes, they have good service, cool ads, free beer, etc ... but that is not the reason for their success.

If they started a focus hub where they did not have that monopoly, they would be just another airline. Time and time again, statistics have shown that people will not choose an airline because they have free beer and F/A's in 1950's uniforms. So they better bring their A game if they expect to compete with AC and WS!

and yet no one can point to a real example of that. I beg to differ - I think Porter's success, at least in terms of their Us service - is precisely because they are a bit old fashioned in their service level. Otherwise everyone would be taking Air Canada and Us carriers to other Canadian cities. and yet they still manage to provide decent connecting service.

The downtown location of YTZ certainly helps, as does the fact that being a dominant carrier there they can set it up with the lounge like waiting area and market themselves effective. That is the big thing they will loose if forced to use YYZ as their hub. They will no longer be able to provide that level of airport service, and they will not be able to effective compete marketing wise against AC having such a big presence.



"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
User currently onlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4982 posts, RR: 42
Reply 48, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4816 times:

I can think of no North American carrier that was successful using "extra" service as a tool. And there have been many ... all First Class or upgraded on-board service ... and none are left. Why? Because that is not how a customer choses an airline.

They will chose the "better" airline if all other parameters are the same, namely price, schedule and frequent flyer benefits. (incidentally, those are the top three .... service wasn't even in the top ten!). Heck, even conventient airport parking was ahead of service on the list!

Porter has a unique advantage. Not just the proximity of YTZ, but the monopoly of YTZ. They have been able to block any one from competing! In my opinion, Deluce is a genious! Legally, he set up a monopoly at YTZ, then in doing so, set up an O&D market. O&D is always a higher yield. So for example, you have AC carrying lower yield "through" traffic YTS-YYZ to go beyond, where the local traffic would/should far prefer YTZ.

The only flies in the ointment, are as stated above. The only future is in growth, and by design, YTZ can not grow unless you let in competition. And when the Rail Link to YYZ opens a lot of the YTZ advantage is lost. Union Station to YYZ by Rail Link vice Union Station to YTZ by bus will be almost the same.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6186 posts, RR: 34
Reply 49, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4801 times:

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 42):
PD invested in the airport when no one else would.

If Air Canada had imagined that they could establish a monopoly on a public airport they would have too.

Yes, PD has invested some money but not nearly as much as casual observers may imagine. Porter has received or benefited from a lot of taxpayer money as well:

* $20 million from Federal government after Toronto City cancelled bridge to the island

* $30 million from Federal government's Business Development Bank financing the terminal

* $20 million to construct ferry terminals and build two ferries

* +300 million from Federal government's Export Development Bank to purchase aircraft

* $82.5 million for pedestrian tunnel to island

* 70 acres free rent on the airport

* 3 free parking lots on the city side

When you add the above benefits to the accumulated losses of $44,505,000 that was stated in Porter's prospectus for their Initial Public Offering and you can easily understand the desperation the Deluce has.


Quoting atcsundevil (Reply 43):
Then they bleed a slow, agonizing death.

I don't think that it is going to be so slow.

Quoting noise (Reply 44):
I don't know what the obsession is with having
Quoting longhauler (Reply 45):
If they started a focus hub where they did not have that monopoly, they would be just another airline. Time and time again, statistics have shown that people will not choose an airline because they have free beer and F/A's in 1950's uniforms.

  

Quoting longhauler (Reply 48):
And when the Rail Link to YTZ advantage is lost. Union Station to YTZ by bus will be almost the same.


During rush hour, rail to YYZ will be faster. And don't forget that you will be able to check in at Union Station...

Quote:
Snowbirds in downtown condos and offices will be able to walk the PATH in their shorts to Union Station, pull their bags along the Skywalk to the UP Express terminal, check in with their airline and board a train that leaves every 15 minutes. Twenty-five minutes later they will be inside the airport.


[Edited 2014-03-28 09:54:12]


Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16259 posts, RR: 56
Reply 50, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4561 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 48):
And when the Rail Link to YYZ opens a lot of the YTZ advantage is lost. Union Station to YYZ by Rail Link vice Union Station to YTZ by bus will be almost the same.

Not even close. The Porter bus or streetcar from Union to YTZ is 5-10 minutes, and its only a 20 minute walk. The rail link will simply displace the Airport Express bus. The rail link will not drive any traffic away from YTZ to YYZ.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineinfiniti329 From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 667 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4526 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 49):
If Air Canada had imagined that they could establish a monopoly on a public airport they would have too.

Really... AC (via Air Ontario/Jazz) was there since 1990.. 16 years before Porter was born. They had prime opportunity if they really wanted to.


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6186 posts, RR: 34
Reply 52, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4519 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 50):
Not even close. The Porter bus or streetcar from Union to YTZ is 5-10 minutes, and its only a 20 minute walk.

Google maps

No traffic conditions:

Car - 26 to 28 minutes
Transit - 23 to 31 minutes
Walk - 40 to 46 minutes

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 50):
The rail link will not drive any traffic away from YTZ to YYZ.

Even without the rail link (which will be faster getting to YYZ than to YTZ particularly during rush hour) Porter is losing traffic...

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.

And with the continued slide in traffic porter stopped releasing results in May 2013.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineinfiniti329 From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 667 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4478 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 52):
Google maps

No traffic conditions:

Car - 26 to 28 minutes
Transit - 23 to 31 minutes
Walk - 40 to 46 minutes

The numbers you are pulling up are for "regualr transit" yyz717 is referring to the express bus service which goes directly from union station to ytz (which also is run by porter)... His numbers are right its only a 10-20 min bus ride.


User currently onlinecloudboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 828 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4356 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 48):
I can think of no North American carrier that was successful using "extra" service as a tool. And there have been many ... all First Class or upgraded on-board service ... and none are left. Why? Because that is not how a customer choses an airline.

And what airlines would that be? I can only think of one airline that had anything more than a few city pairs that offered a premium economy type of service. And that one WAS successful up until the time they decided to give up on the concept and start becoming a two-class airline with a bad network.

Porter has a few strong offerings. They are not a premium economy airline - but they do offer a much improved waiting experience at the airport itself. That is something they would not be able to offer at YYZ, as the airport concessions would never allow that. They also offer a fairly expedient processing for both outbound and inbound passengers, another thing that you are not going to get at Pearson. And lastly a terminal designed expressly for the type of aircraft they handle - Q400s and small regional jets.

If Toronto was willing to build a terminal expressly for Porter, then I could see it working at Pearson. But that is not going to happen, and AC knows that. And if they can stifle Porter at YTZ, then they are all set.



"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6186 posts, RR: 34
Reply 55, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4351 times:

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 53):
The numbers you are pulling up are for "regualr transit" yyz717 is referring to the express bus service which goes directly from union station to ytz (which also is run by porter)... His numbers are right its only a 10-20 min bus ride.

First, he is not right. He did not say 10-20 minutes. He said 5-10 minutes... so you are off by 100% in transposing his numbers.

Second. A taxi/car is faster than any bus and yet it is still 26 to 28 minutes with no traffic. Right now, with only Saturday morning traffic, the shortest route is showing 31 minutes by taxi/car. So during rush hour it would be even longer.

Quoting cloudboy (Reply 54):
They also offer a fairly expedient processing for both outbound and inbound passengers, another thing that you are not going to get at Pearson.


With the express train to Pearson you will be able to check in at Union Station. Plus, nowadays with eTickets there's no issue of "processing".

Quoting cloudboy (Reply 54):
And lastly a terminal designed expressly for the type of aircraft they handle - Q400s and small regional jets.

CRJ cannot land at YTZ so the terminal is not designed for RJs.

Quoting cloudboy (Reply 54):
And if they can stifle Porter at YTZ, then they are all set.

AC doesn't have to do anything to stifle Porter at the island airport... Porters business plan was a gamble from the start. And Porter's desperation to now have mainline jets at the island (which never was in the business plan) amply shows it.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineytz From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 24
Reply 56, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4329 times:

UPE link isn't going to do much to dent Porter. Not at the prices that UPE plans to charge. Nobody is going to pay $40-$50 (roundtrip) to get to YYZ from downtown when they cab to YTZ for half that in the core or they can take transit to YTZ for a fraction of that (and in the same time). And that's on a $300 tix to Montreal or New York? Yeah right.

And if you live in the entire eastern half and most of the north of the GTA, the UPE means squat. YTZ will still be more convenient. Better access by GO and accessible by TTC in a reasonable amount of time and for reasonable cost.

UPE is really only going to displace airport shuttle bus and cab services. YTZ is simply too convenient for a lot of us to trade in for UPE ride to a worse airport. After all, you're still going to Pearson where check in times are longer and you have to walk further everywhere.

As for noise...I live at Bathurst and Fort York. I have never noticed the air traffic. The noise argument is bunk. And for every NIMBY arguing, there's a regular user of that airport who lives nearby and loves the convenience.

The biggest issue is managing traffic in the drop area. At some point they'll have to built some kind of tunnel for waiting taxis.


User currently onlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4982 posts, RR: 42
Reply 57, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4317 times:

Quoting cloudboy (Reply 54):
And what airlines would that be?

The most obvious would be Astoria Airlines, with their all Business configuration flying between YYZ and YUL.

Another good example would be Midwest Express Airlines. They were successful. They found that there was a passenger demographic that would pay slightly more than the normal reduced Y fare for an all F class airline. That passenger too was more inclined to pay a full fare Y walkup at the last minute, than over a "legacy" carrier. These resulting higher yields offset the reduced capacity of their aircraft.

However, with 9/11 that passenger all but disappeared. They were then forced to realize the passenger that was left ... would not pay more for additional service and comfort. They then had to change their service to match customer demand. In fact in most airline MBA courses, Midwest Express is used as the best example of a decline in passenger expectations resulting in a decline in on-board service levels.

Other examples would be Air1 or Regent Airlines. These start-ups found they could not make money with a premium product and did not last long. MGM Grand Air, another example lasted longer, as their revenue was not just focused on their scheduled LAX-JFK service. But they too eventually felt the need for the reduced service the customer was willing to pay for, and the all F B727s fell way to a combined F/PremiumY DC-8-62 ... and eventually stopped JFK-LAX scheduled service completely.

People enjoy better service, they just won't pay for it.

Quoting cloudboy (Reply 54):
a few city pairs that offered a premium economy type of service

All of these examples started with a few city pairs (Porter included). That's how airlines work. If their product is workable/successful, they grow. If not, they shut down.

Quoting cloudboy (Reply 54):
If Toronto was willing to build a terminal expressly for Porter, then I could see it working at Pearson. But that is not going to happen, and AC knows that. And if they can stifle Porter at YTZ, then they are all set.

I doubt Deluce is going to talk another airport authority in making his capital investments for him. But ... there are alternatives at YYZ. Namely the Infield Terminal, or the A pier at T3. Those could be made into a "private" terminal.

AC (or WS) is not stifling Porter at YTZ, Porter is stifling Porter at YTZ. They are at capacity now. If they want to grow, more slots will have to be invented, more terminal space built ... then they will be faced with more competition as it would be a hard sell to the Canadian traveling public that they deserve to maintain their monopoly.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineytz From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 24
Reply 58, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4291 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 56):
First, he is not right. He did not say 10-20 minutes. He said 5-10 minutes... so you are off by 100% in transposing his numbers.

Second. A taxi/car is faster than any bus and yet it is still 26 to 28 minutes with no traffic. Right now, with only Saturday morning traffic, the shortest route is showing 31 minutes by taxi/car. So during rush hour it would be even longer.

Construction in the core is slowing things down at the moment. They'll be done this summer. I've taken the bus from Union several times. Travel times vary from 15-25 mins depending on traffic.

But you are forgetting a key point: the shuttle bus is free.

A subway token gets me from North York to Union in half an hour..from say Yonge and Eglinton. And then say another 30 minutes with wait for shuttle. In bad traffic, it can take 40 minutes to drive from North York to Pearson. And have you ever seen how much cab fare is from North York or Scarborough to Pearson?

And if you live in the core? No contest. In the time it takes to get to Union and for UPE's fare itself, you can simply get to cab to YTZ itself.

People seem to be forgetting that you gotta get to Union to catch the UPE to begin with. And the only other stop is Weston. And I doubt they'll have check-in counters there.

UPE is just not going to be a factor for any regular YTZ traveler who probably already finds YTZ convenient for a myriad of reasons. But if you were going to fly from Pearson? UPE will get you there faster and cheaper.


User currently onlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4982 posts, RR: 42
Reply 59, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4285 times:

Quoting ytz (Reply 57):
And if you live in the entire eastern half and most of the north of the GTA, the UPE means squat. YTZ will still be more convenient. Better access by GO and accessible by TTC in a reasonable amount of time and for reasonable cost.

Yes, if you take public transit, and if you feel the need to go through Union Station. For those areas though, the TTC offers express buses from various points on their system directly to YYZ. all for their normal fares.

However, for the millions of people that live in the areas you mention, they will get to the airport the way the vast majority do ... that is by automobile, and YYZ is quicker by car, with more convenient parking than YTZ.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6186 posts, RR: 34
Reply 60, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4280 times:



Quoting ytz (Reply 59):
Construction in the core is slowing things down at the moment.

Even with NO traffic the travel time is 26 mins.

Quoting ytz (Reply 59):
And the only other stop is Weston.

It will also stop at Bloor.

Quoting ytz (Reply 57):
UPE link isn't going to do much to dent Porter.

It will but it really doesn't matter since with Porter's low LFs there is less and less to put a dent to. And that is the crux of the issue. There simply are not enough of "you" to make Porter a viable investment.

[Edited 2014-03-29 08:10:08]


Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineyhu From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 429 posts, RR: 1
Reply 61, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4235 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 52):
Google maps

No traffic conditions:

Car - 26 to 28 minutes
Transit - 23 to 31 minutes
Walk - 40 to 46 minute

Incorrect. Google Maps i taking into account waiting for the ferry and then taking the ferry. Enter a search for Union to 1 Eireann Quay, Toronto, ON, Canada, which is the address of the ferry terminal. If you have ever taken the Porter Shuttle you know very well it's 5-10 minutes. By August this year you will be able to get off the shuttle and walk to the airport through the tunnel.

To re-state what others have said, it is not 26 minutes, it is 5-10 from Union to the Ferry.


User currently offlineytz From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 24
Reply 62, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4206 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 61):
Even with NO traffic the travel time is 26 mins.

Not my experience. Or that of several others here. But whatever. The shuttle bus is convenient. It doesn't stop anywhere else. And it's free. UPE's proposed fares were outrageous when the project was proposed. It's only getting worse the closer it gets to completion. Though I guess it's cheaper than a taxi, it still won't be cheaper than the airport buses.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 61):
It will also stop at Bloor.

Still doesn't do much if you live in the north or the east. YTZ is still more convenient. And again, it doesn't remove the fact that Pearson has worse service by design.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 61):
It will but it really doesn't matter since with Porter's low LFs there is less and less to put a dent to. And that is the crux of the issue. There simply are not enough of "you" to make Porter a viable investment.

We'll see. The downtown core has now residents than it's ever had. That's a large and well heeled base on which to build a business. Whatever happens, i'm glad for Porter because it proved the viability of YTZ.

Let's just see how it plays out before we start organising the funeral shall we? You seem more eager to get the party going than PD's investors.


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6186 posts, RR: 34
Reply 63, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4200 times:

Quoting ytz (Reply 63):
Still doesn't do much if you live in the north or the east. YTZ is still more convenient.

Obviously it isn't given Porter's low LFs.

Quoting ytz (Reply 63):
The downtown core has now residents than it's ever had. That's a large and well heeled base on which to build a business.

And yet Porter is still getting low LFs.

Quoting ytz (Reply 63):
it proved the viability of YTZ.

But only for a select group of city-pairs and mainly because of the Q400.

Quoting ytz (Reply 63):
PD's investors.

That is the problem for the investors... they thought that they were going to have a quick party and now they are stuck with a an investment that is going south.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlinetimboflier215 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 1336 posts, RR: 1
Reply 64, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4196 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 61):

Personally, I wish Porter all the best and hope they are able to start flying the CSeries from YTZ soon.

I just don't get why, on a site for so-called enthusiasts, people can wish the worst for an airline with such avid ferocity.


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6186 posts, RR: 34
Reply 65, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4177 times:

Quoting timboflier215 (Reply 65):
I just don't get why, on a site for so-called enthusiasts, people can wish the worst for an airline with such avid ferocity.

No such thing. It is simply stating the realities of Porter's problems. Pretending that they don't exist will will not make them go away.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlinethreepoint From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2135 posts, RR: 9
Reply 66, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4167 times:

Quoting rampbro (Reply 9):
You could have decent visit to the HHOF with a 90 minute cnx.

No way - even the full 90 minutes inside the HHOF will barely whet the appetite.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 4):

As a resident of Harbourfront (adjacent to YTZ) and an avid sailboat racer, I can vouch that there are absolutely no noise issues nor threats to the Waterfront by the Porter proposals.

I'm not very familiar with Toronto at all, but have observed the same as you whenever I am there. Unfortunately, it's perception rather than reality which so often drives these debates and sways public opinion.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 18):

Calvin Rovinescu wrote an op-ed in the Toronto Star and welcomes PD to compete with AC at YYZ.

But Calvin...Porter doesn't want to compete with you on your home turf. They went out and created their own pitch. Successful competitors don't succeed by acquiescing to their opponents' conditions of battle.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 40):
Do you think the current investors would have approved the refundable deposits if PD did not have good financials?

Why not? It seems to be low or nil risk. And if there exists the chance of a positive decision (approval of jets at YTZ) in the interim, then really, they'd have been foolish not to, regardless of their current financial position.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 52):
Google maps

No traffic conditions:

Car - 26 to 28 minutes
Transit - 23 to 31 minutes
Walk - 40 to 46 minutes

Relying on Google Maps to debate a local resident is a fool's errand in many instances. Personally, I have little idea on how long it takes to get around Toronto, but I do know that travel times within Vancouver do not always correlate with what Google suggests. If I lived outside downtown TO, and was debating Yyz717 who presumably traverses his neighbourhood on a daily basis, I'd back up my assertions with more ammunition that what an algorithm offers.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 56):

CRJ cannot land at YTZ so the terminal is not designed for RJs.

Do you imply that a CRJ can't land at YTZ because the terminal is unsuitable, or because the runway is unsuitable? It's an enormous distinction. I see no reason why any regional jet couldn't use the terminal itself...provided they can safely get there.



The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6186 posts, RR: 34
Reply 67, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4150 times:

Quoting threepoint (Reply 67):
Porter doesn't want to compete with you on your home turf.

An understatement.

Quoting threepoint (Reply 67):
Relying on Google Maps

Not relying. Another "local resident" said that it takes 15-25 minutes, 2.5 to 3 times longer than your reference, and which is much closer to Google maps.

Quoting threepoint (Reply 67):
Do you imply

He said that the terminal was designed for RJs.  



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25311 posts, RR: 22
Reply 68, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3930 times:

Quoting ytz (Reply 62):
Quoting planemaker (Reply 61):
Even with NO traffic the travel time is 26 mins.

Not my experience. Or that of several others here.

More like 10 minutes in my experience (using the shuttle bus). Probably more during rush hours, but 26 minutes sounds much too long.


User currently offlinebingo1 From Canada, joined Dec 2009, 101 posts, RR: 0
Reply 69, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3914 times:

This thread is turning into a joke. Two of the most prolific posters are an AC employee and a poster who makes a living bashing the C-series. So obviously neither want Porter to do well and thats fine we all have our tastes but I find this thread far from objective. FYI I don't work for Porter and in fact have never even flown them. Neither do I have any ties with Bombardier whatsoever.


Planecrzy
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6186 posts, RR: 34
Reply 70, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3746 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 68):
Probably more during rush hours, but 26 minutes sounds much too long.

This has always been about getting to YTZ... not to the mainland side of the ferry as you can't do anything from that side.   And that is why the original post that stated that it took only 5-10 minutes to YTZ from Union Station made no sense. Especially since it was in reply to the Union Pearson rail link that will go to the air terminal...

Quote:
Snowbirds in downtown condos and offices will be able to walk the PATH in their shorts to Union Station, pull their bags along the Skywalk to the UP Express terminal, check in with their airline and board a train that leaves every 15 minutes. Twenty-five minutes later they will be inside the airport.

.

Quoting bingo1 (Reply 69):
This thread is turning into a joke.

Now that you got that off your chest, is there anything that you can contribute that is relevant to what is actually being discussed?  



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16259 posts, RR: 56
Reply 71, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3609 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 70):
And that is why the original post that stated that it took only 5-10 minutes to YTZ from Union Station made no sense.

It's reality. This is my hood and I can vouch for it.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 68):
More like 10 minutes in my experience (using the shuttle bus).

More anecdotal evidence....

Quoting planemaker (Reply 63):
And yet Porter is still getting low LFs.

Do you have a source for the low LF's? Porter has not released LF info publicly since March 2013.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 63):
Quoting ytz (Reply 63):
it proved the viability of YTZ.

But only for a select group of city-pairs and mainly because of the Q400.

PD has 16 nonstop destinations from YTZ. That's more than just a "select" group.

Why all the negativity to PD and YTZ? Just wondering.....



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineyhu From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 429 posts, RR: 1
Reply 72, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3531 times:

Quoting threepoint (Reply 66):
elying on Google Maps to debate a local resident is a fool's errand in many instances. Personally, I have little idea on how long it takes to get around Toronto, but I do know that travel times within Vancouver do not always correlate with what Google suggests. If I lived outside downtown TO, and was debating Yyz717 who presumably traverses his neighbourhood on a daily basis, I'd back up my assertions with more ammunition that what an algorithm offers.

As someone who takes the shuttle on almost a daily basis, I can confirm it's about an 8-12 minute ride even during rush hour.


User currently onlinecloudboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 828 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3508 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 67):
He said that the terminal was designed for RJs.

So you think they went through the whole design and construction process of a terminal based purely on their current operations and not think about the future? If Porter had as much say in the design and construction of the terminal as is claimed, do you not think they would have anticipated future operations?

Quoting longhauler (Reply 57):
Another good example would be Midwest Express Airlines. They were successful. They found that there was a passenger demographic that would pay slightly more than the normal reduced Y fare for an all F class airline. That passenger too was more inclined to pay a full fare Y walkup at the last minute, than over a "legacy" carrier. These resulting higher yields offset the reduced capacity of their aircraft.

Here we go again. Midwest WAS successful. You are right - not only 9/11, but especially the Tech Bubble Burst hit them hard because they were quite reliant on that traffic. But what happened next was what most critics choose to overlook and what really killed them - they dropped being a complete premium airline and started trying to mix in low cost features. Suddenly they were charging a premium price for what turned out to be half premium have budget travel. That turned away a huge number of their customers. Why pay more to fly on what was essentially JetBlue light.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 57):
All of these examples started with a few city pairs (Porter included). That's how airlines work. If their product is workable/successful, they grow. If not, they shut down.

You cant grow market if you cant connect to that market. That is why so many start-ups do fail. There are no city pairs that offer enough traffic simply between themselves to build a profitable market between them. All the airlines that have started successfully know they need to develop a network and have capitalized for that. Some feel that they can just grow as traffic between their city pair builds, these have been the ones that have failed so quickly.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 55):
With the express train to Pearson you will be able to check in at Union Station. Plus, nowadays with eTickets there's no issue of "processing".

Have you tried flying lately - especially to the states? There is still quite a bit you have to go through. You still need to check bags, you still need to show your passport, you still need to go through security. These are all longer and more difficult in a crowded airport than a small one lite YTZ. And I might add a heck of a lot less friendly, too.



"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
User currently offlineyyztpa From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 39 posts, RR: 0
Reply 74, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3478 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 71):
Why all the negativity to PD and YTZ? Just wondering.....

Could it be their plan to buy the C-Series doesn't meet with everyone's favor?


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6186 posts, RR: 34
Reply 75, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3450 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 71):
It's reality. This is my hood and I can vouch for it.

You cannot get from Union Station to the YTZ airport terminal in 5-10 minutes as you continue to claim. The ferry is every 15 minutes... so right there your 5-10 minutes is eaten up. Add in gridlock rush hour traffic in downtown Toronto and not only is the trip from Union Station to just the ferry easily more than 20 minutes, but you have to leave yourself even more contingency time for traffic.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 71):
Do you have a source for the low LF's? Porter has not released LF info publicly since March 2013.

March 2013 numbers were the last reported in the link I posted to you earlier. And the linked article stated why they were the last...

Quote:
The privately-held airline had been voluntarily releasing its monthly load factors, traffic and capacity figures since September 2010. But in recent months, the carrier had started to show declines in both traffic and its load factors — or average amount of seats filled on its planes — while its rivals, Air Canada and WestJet Airlines Ltd., posted gains.


And Air Canada and WestJet have only become even more competitive since then. If Porter's LF's had improved since then they would be trumpeting them.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 71):
PD has 16 nonstop destinations from YTZ. That's more than just a "select" group.

It is because there is no competition from the island on 15 of those 16 routes. That is the beauty of a monopoly. BTW, several of those routes don't even provide a daily flight.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 71):
Why all the negativity to PD and YTZ? Just wondering.....

Not YTZ at all. And not "PD", per se.

As a matter of principal I don't agree with the underhandedness of Deluce. And I certainly don't agree that taxpayer's should help Deluce enrich himself nor enable his continued monopoly.

Quoting cloudboy (Reply 73):
So you think they went through the whole design and construction process of a terminal based purely on their current operations and not think about the future?

The only future Deluce had in mind was to enrich himself via the two failed IPO attempts.

Moreover... to state the painfully obvious... not only are jets prohibited as per the Tripartite Agreement but as has been pointed out many times, the runway would have to be extended to accommodate jets.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently onlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4982 posts, RR: 42
Reply 76, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3372 times:

Quoting cloudboy (Reply 73):
But what happened next was what most critics choose to overlook and what really killed them - they dropped being a complete premium airline and started trying to mix in low cost features.

But if no one "wanted" the premium part of their service, as that passenger disappeared, then what really happened first? You have to assume, if they could continue to be the airline they were in the year 2000, they would have stuck with it. Midwest Express' change to me, was an indication of a change in passenger demographic and passenger demands ... not the other way around.

So with normal Y seats and Y service, they were just another airline. Sad ... as the couple of times I flew with them as a passenger, they were by a very very wide margin, the best Y experience I had ever seen.

Quoting cloudboy (Reply 73):
You cant grow market if you cant connect to that market. That is why so many start-ups do fail. There are no city pairs that offer enough traffic simply between themselves to build a profitable market between them.

Remember that one of the world's most successful airlines started with just one city pair. DAL-HOU!

But in reality, it is a tough balance. Any airline would love the funding to start with 50 aircraft and service between 100 city pairs twice a day, but that is just not feasible, nor has it ever occurred! Like Porter did, with YTZ-YUL/YOW, you have to start with a profit centre, and work from there.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 71):

Why all the negativity to PD and YTZ? Just wondering.....

I have flown then a couple of times, and it was a very pleasant experience. But, in my opinion, you have to separate the comfort and free beer from the politics behind. In the past, Deluce has always been an arrogant little prick, and loved taunting his success in people's faces. His startup of Porter, and using local government's funds to create a monopoly was legal and brilliant. But, these plans for the growth of Porter are presently not legal ... and he want's to change the laws to suit him and feed his monopoly.

He would love to taunt his success with Porter, but ... to do that, he has to grow. With a business plan including growth, then maybe he can have a successful IPO, get out of Porter, and brag to his buddies at the Empire Club how he is one of the few who made money in airlines.

On the other side of the coin. If the expansion were not allowed, and he was not allowed to fly jets into YTZ, then he can use that as his excuse for failure ... anything but a flawed business plan. And sadly, anything that actually is made public with regard to Porter's finances is not encouraging.

Personally, I would like Porter if it were owned by someone else!  



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25311 posts, RR: 22
Reply 77, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3279 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 76):
Remember that one of the world's most successful airlines started with just one city pair. DAL-HOU!
Quoting planemaker (Reply 75):
You cannot get from Union Station to the YTZ airport terminal in 5-10 minutes as you continue to claim. The ferry is every 15 minutes... so right there your 5-10 minutes is eaten up.

The new pedestrian tunnel due to be completed late this year will eliminate the wait for the ferry.
http://www.bbtcatunnelproject.ca/

Video re construction progress (6 months ago) in this item.
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013...el_to_torontos_island_airport.html


User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16259 posts, RR: 56
Reply 78, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3272 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 75):
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 71):
It's reality. This is my hood and I can vouch for it.

You cannot get from Union Station to the YTZ airport terminal in 5-10 minutes as you continue to claim.

Well, I can. So can YHU and Viscount 724. And thousands of others. Daily.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 76):
But, in my opinion, you have to separate the comfort and free beer from the politics behind.

The same comment would apply to AC.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 76):
Deluce has always been an arrogant little prick

Robert Milton was an arrogant little prick also. Deluce built an airline from the ground up. Milton stepped into an existing role and summarily drove AC into bankruptcy. My money is on the Canadian "arrogant little prick".

Quoting longhauler (Reply 76):
And sadly, anything that actually is made public with regard to Porter's finances is not encouraging.

Nothing has been made publlic. So there should be no sadness.  

As for Porter having a "failed" IPO, no such thing has happened. A "failed" IPO is defined as one of the following:
1. An IPO that is undersubscribed upon release, causing the bank to hold unintended stock at a loss, or sell it at a loss. Or...
2. An IPO that drops in price after release and NEVER again trades at the IPO level. AC is in this category, in spades.

An IPO that is cancelled or delayed before release day is not a failed IPO. It's simply an IPO that didn't happen.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineYYZatcboy From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1082 posts, RR: 0
Reply 79, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3217 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 71):
Do you have a source for the low LF's? Porter has not released LF info publicly since March 2013.
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 78):
Quoting longhauler (Reply 76):
And sadly, anything that actually is made public with regard to Porter's finances is not encouraging.

Nothing has been made publlic. So there should be no sadness.

You see how you just contradicted yourself right?



DHC1/3/4 MD11/88 L1011 A319/20/21/30 B727 735/6/7/8/9 762/3 E175/90 CRJ/700/705 CC150. J/S DH8D 736/7/8
User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16259 posts, RR: 56
Reply 80, posted (5 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3160 times:

Quoting YYZatcboy (Reply 79):
You see how you just contradicted yourself right?

Nope. Year old LF stats provide no firm information about even year old profitability, let alone current profitability.

Nothing has ever been released from PD that is even indicative of what their operating profits are. However, that its private backers are seemingly supporting Deluce in his airport expansion and CS-100 push, it's a pretty reasonable assumption that PD is indeed profitable and has been for some time.

Otherwise, Porter would be more focused on fixing their current Q400 operation.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6186 posts, RR: 34
Reply 81, posted (5 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3114 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 78):
Well, I can. So can YHU and Viscount 724. And thousands of others. Daily.

No one said 5 minutes as you claim... which is simply impossible. You cannot pretend that the ferry isn't there and that it doesn't sails only every 15 minutes.

Furthermore, neither YHU nor Viscount 724 even said 5-10 minutes.

And it is a moot point, anyhow. PD is getting lousy LF's even without the Union Pearson rail link.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 78):
Robert Milton was an arrogant little prick also.

I don't disagree at all... and I've frequently chimed in on past threads. But this thread is about Deluce and Porter so an irrelevant post.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 78):
Deluce built an airline from the ground up.

Pretty easy when you use other people's money and create a virtual monopoly of a public airport and rely on taxpayers money and benefits as well.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 78):
As for Porter having a "failed" IPO, no such thing has happened.

You can play semantics but the facts are that Deluce "failed"... twice to get investors to buy into his IPO.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 80):
Nope. Year old LF stats provide no firm information about even year old profitability, let alone current profitability.

Exactly... PD is doing worse and that is why Deluce won't publish the results anymore.

We know that Deluce was on a downward trend while both Air Canada and Westjet increased traffic and LFs.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 80):
However, that its private backers are seemingly supporting Deluce in his airport expansion and CS-100 push, it's a pretty reasonable assumption that PD is indeed profitable and has been for some time.

The private backers don't have a choice. Currently Deluce doesn't have a growth story for another stab at an IPO. So either Porter goes jets and somehow manages to create a growth story or the private backers' investments flatline.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 80):
Otherwise, Porter would be more focused on fixing their current Q400 operation.

That's the obvious problem... there is no fixing the Q400 operation and hence the need for jets.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineYYZatcboy From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1082 posts, RR: 0
Reply 82, posted (5 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3085 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 80):
Nope. Year old LF stats provide no firm information about even year old profitability, let alone current profitability.

Reply 71 you say that PD has not released info publicly since March 2013, implying (as we all know they were) that they were releasing the data before.

Longhauler then says that those results were not encouraging.

You then deny that anything has been made public, contradicting your previous post that said that results HAD been made public.

Do you now see how you contradicted yourself?



DHC1/3/4 MD11/88 L1011 A319/20/21/30 B727 735/6/7/8/9 762/3 E175/90 CRJ/700/705 CC150. J/S DH8D 736/7/8
User currently onlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4982 posts, RR: 42
Reply 83, posted (5 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3081 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 78):
The same comment would apply to AC.

Yes, and BA, QF, SQ, etc etc etc ... but this thread isn't about them.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 78):
Robert Milton was an arrogant little prick also. Deluce built an airline from the ground up. Milton stepped into an existing role and summarily drove AC into bankruptcy. My money is on the Canadian "arrogant little prick".

I don't disagree, but again ... we are not talking about them!

Besides .... Deluce can only dream about the money Robert Milton has made from airlines in the last 10 years!



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1019 posts, RR: 4
Reply 84, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2818 times:

Been watching this thread with not a little amusement, but a bit struck by how accusations are being treated as fact without any source whatsoever. Conjecture appears to have become fact.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 65):
No such thing. It is simply stating the realities of Porter's problems. Pretending that they don't exist will will not make them go away.

Source? Any type of source? I'm seeing a lot of allegations. And nothing to back it up.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 75):
As a matter of principal I don't agree with the underhandedness of Deluce. And I certainly don't agree that taxpayer's should help Deluce enrich himself nor enable his continued monopoly.

The 'matter of principle' is redundant unless you apply it uniformly. How do AC's executives perform according to your 'principles'? Taxpayer dollars. A great concept. Who got bailed out in 2009? AC? Or PD? How much did Calin make that year?

Quoting longhauler (Reply 76):
In the past, Deluce has always been an arrogant little prick, and loved taunting his success in people's faces. His startup of Porter, and using local government's funds to create a monopoly was legal and brilliant. But, these plans for the growth of Porter are presently not legal ... and he want's to change the laws to suit him and feed his monopoly.

I'm going to assume that this is a slip. Such personal attacks are unbecoming. Not least when one voluntarily works for an airline that's run by a man who writes Op-Eds about the importance of 'public interest' when it suits him, and who then criticizes elected (let me repeat that: elected) governments for pursuing policies that are in the 'public interest' simply because they don't work for him. Suffice it to say, any principled stand you're trying to take is undermined by the sheer hypocrisy involved. Deluce may be arrogant, but his little airline isn't asking for anything AC hasn't already declared itself entitled to. After all, how many hundreds of millions of dollars did AC's little fight with EK cost Canadian taxpayers? Quite a bit of money, to protect it from competition. Granted, that still didn't stop AC from helping shed thousands of Aveos jobs...the ones it said it was going to protect from EK.

He used Government funds? Damn. Thought that was common practice in Canada. Wasn't there an airline that had to be bailed out using taxpayer dollars in 2009?

They want to change the law? Oh my word. We don't do that here. Unless we're talking about "national champions" like AC trying to change competition laws so that they can enter joint ventures with LH and UA. Surely being metal neutral and sharing revenue doesn't cause monopolization.

As for monopoly...an interesting concept. Monopolies are based on the absence of substitutable goods. Is a flight out of Toronto Island not a substitutable good? I seem to be under the impression that an airline named Air Canada decided that it was perfectly substitutable by a flight from Pearson. In fact, IIRC, that's why AC moved all its Toronto Island-Wherever flights to Pearson. Its a bit odd, hearing AC folk complain about a monopoly at Toronto Island, after their airline named Pearson a perfectly good substitute. By definition, the two are competitive with one another. In fact, they are competing against one another. That is to say, Pearson - Ottawa competes with Toronto City Island - Ottawa. Does it not?

To me, the prices suggest that it does. Why else do the airlines try to match each others sales on the golden triangle? If we go by your logic of monopoly, PD should be of little consequence to AC and WS, and vice versa. That's simply not true, is it?

(The battle between the edit function and Canadian airports continues. Not sure why it hasn't been resolved - its been years)

[Edited 2014-03-31 11:16:57]

User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16259 posts, RR: 56
Reply 85, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2778 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 81):
Exactly... PD is doing worse and that is why Deluce won't publish the results anymore.

PD is doing worse than what?

Quoting planemaker (Reply 81):
We know that Deluce was on a downward trend while both Air Canada and Westjet increased traffic and LFs.

A downward trend based on what?

Quoting planemaker (Reply 81):
The private backers don't have a choice. Currently Deluce doesn't have a growth story for another stab at an IPO.

Do you know anything about how private businesses are run when seed capital is provided by outside parties? The latter run the show, and have the final say on the business plan and major capital outlays. Deluce would not be allowed to embark on PorterPlans unless the underlying Q400 operation was running soundly.

Quoting YYZatcboy (Reply 82):
You then deny that anything has been made public, contradicting your previous post that said that results HAD been made public.

Well, since you live in a literal world, I will spell out my not so nuanced point: the previously released LF stats provide nothing in terms of profit indication. Nothing.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 83):
I don't disagree, but again ... we are not talking about them!

So we are in agreement then that all airlines are heavily inter-twined with politics. So why mention it as somehow being a Porter-only phenom? it's not.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 84):
He used Government funds? Damn. Thought that was common practice in Canada. Wasn't there an airline that had to be bailed out using taxpayer dollars in 2009?

They want to change the law? Oh my word. We don't do that here. Unless we're talking about "national champions" like AC trying to change competition laws so that they can enter joint ventures with LH and UA. Surely being metal neutral and sharing revenue doesn't cause monopolization.

As for monopoly...an interesting concept. Monopolies are based on the absence of substitutable goods. Is a flight out of YTZ not a substitutable good?

All good points. Well said.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently onlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4982 posts, RR: 42
Reply 86, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2739 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 85):
So we are in agreement then that all airlines are heavily inter-twined with politics. So why mention it as somehow being a Porter-only phenom? it's not.

Because you asked about the negativity toward Porter, and I answered with my own opinion. It's not up for discussion, it's my own opinion. And ... for the life of me, I can't see where you would have thought it was a Porter Only occurrence, it is however the topic of this message thread.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 84):
I'm going to assume that this is a slip.

Not at all ... it's just my opinion, responding to a question, nothing more. And, it goes back to Austin Airways days.

If yyz717 had asked about positive things about Porter, I would answer in kind. There are a few things I respect about Porter and Deluce ... but you didn't ask.  



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6186 posts, RR: 34
Reply 87, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2687 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 84):
Source? Any type of source? I'm seeing a lot of allegations. And nothing to back it up.

I linked to the news articles.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 84):
The 'matter of principle' is redundant unless you apply it uniformly. How do AC's executives perform according to your 'principles'? Taxpayer dollars. A great concept. Who got bailed out in 2009? AC? Or PD? How much did Calin make that year?

As pointed out 4 or 5 times ... wrong thread.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 84):
Deluce may be arrogant, but his little airline isn't asking for anything AC

AC has never turned a public airport into a monopoly.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 84):
In fact, IIRC, that's why AC moved all its Toronto Island-Wherever flights to Pearson.

Deluce kicked them out.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 85):
PD is doing worse than what?

Worse than Air Canada and WestJet.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 85):
A downward trend based on what?

As reported in the links provided.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 85):
Do you know anything about how private businesses are run when seed capital is provided by outside parties?

What you continue to ignore is that the investors need a return on their investment (and a big one since they are the "seed investors"). And the only way is through an IPO. Without a growth story there is no IPO. Thus, the investors choice is to have a lousy investment with the status quo, or gamble on the "jets" strategy in the desperate hope of being able to generate a plausible growth story that will enable some sort of IPO that someone will invest in.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 86):
And, it goes back to Austin Airways days.

And the South Africa days, too.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1019 posts, RR: 4
Reply 88, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2596 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 86):
Not at all ... it's just my opinion, responding to a question, nothing more. And, it goes back to Austin Airways days.If yyz717 had asked about positive things about Porter, I would answer in kind. There are a few things I respect about Porter and Deluce ... but you didn't ask.

I see. Well, just to be clear, I really only objected to the swear word you used there. That's a very low level of name-calling which really shouldn't be allowed in any civilized debate. That aside, he hasn't done anything that other Canadian aviation CEOs haven't done. By your own criteria, the man you work for would qualify for the same name you've just called Deluce. If the glove fits....

Personally, I wouldn't go around throwing out criteria and assigning offensive language to those who meet it, at least not when the man running one's company actually meets the same criteria. Its brave. Even a little foolhardy.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 87):
I linked to the news articles.

Yes, but I don't think its lost on you that everybody on this website knows that Load Factors - high or low - mean nothing unless you know the yield. Simple fact is: we don't. Porter never releases it.

What we do know is that it has a bunch of investors who are willing to front up a fair bit of cash for shiny new toys. They're just as likely to know what they're doing as they are to not know what they're doing. Given that they have this kind of money to throw around (or away, if we go by your reasoning), I don't think its a stretch to suggest that they're generally quite good at what they do.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 87):
As pointed out 4 or 5 times ... wrong thread.

Nope. You've made it a matter of principle (unless you really meant principal, in which case only you know who this principal is). To be precise, this is your exact quote:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 75):
As a matter of principal I don't agree with the underhandedness of Deluce. And I certainly don't agree that taxpayer's should help Deluce enrich himself nor enable his continued monopoly.

The problem with your argument is that Deluce has operated within the system, just like every other Canadian airline CEO. Underhanded? Probably. Made money of taxpayer dollars? Depends - should CEO's be picking up salaries when their companies are being bailed out by the government?

I think Deluce has behaved just like any other airline CEO and should be held to the same standard as them. AND vice versa. Especially when you go around throwing out phrases like "matter of principle". Its intellectually dishonest, and not a little self-serving, to condemn one person for playing using the same rules as everyone else. And yet you can't seem to get yourself to condemn them all...

I think Canadian aviation is a mess. A big, twisted, political mess. Its easy to look the other way when it doesn't suit you, but that doesn't make it any less true. This mess - it needs to be fixed. Till then, however, I expect all underhanded folk to be recognized as such, rather than engage in selective - and self-serving - targeting.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 87):
AC has never turned a public airport into a monopoly.

A monopoly of what? The products are apparently substitutable. That is, in fact, why AC moved the bulk of its operations out of Toronto Island long before Porter came into existence. If the airline itself thinks the products from one airport can be substituted with products from another, I fail to see where the monopoly is.

Furthermore, IIRC, a court ruled against AC's allegations (which, I suspect, are similar to yours). Personally, I have a lot of faith in our independent judiciary, but you're free to cast aspersions about them if you want to.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 87):
Deluce kicked them out.

This is a rather disingenuous argument.

AC was on a month-to-month contract. It could up and leave with a month's notice whenever it wanted. There is a risk associated with this for the airport. With one month's notice, they can be out of business. Of course, this also translates into a risk for AC - with one month's notice, they're out of business. The management talent at AC thought this was a risk worth taking. They took it. They lost. When you take risks, you win some. And you lose some. The blame for that, unsurprisingly, lies with the people who take the risk.

I don't care much for the phrase 'kicked out' either. It implies a breach of contract. Was there a breach of contract? As I understand it, the lease is an agreement with two parties. One party did not agree to renew it (but did allow the other party to see out the remainder of the existing lease). It didn't work out for AC, but its certainly not unfair because, as noted above, AC could have done the same thing to the airport. If they wanted to stay longer, they should have committed to a longer term. AC wasn't interested. They wanted the freedom to pull out whenever wanted to. And then PD or TPA (I m still not sure who) turned the tables on them. Then it suddenly became 'unfair'. Heh.

To put it very mildly, it wasn't an eviction. No one was kicked out. AC has only itself to blame for not being willing to put its money where its newfound mouth is, and signing a longer lease. Can't have it both ways.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 87):
Thus, the investors choice is to have a lousy investment with the status quo, or gamble on the "jets" strategy in the desperate hope of being able to generate a plausible growth story that will enable some sort of IPO that someone will invest in.

But one that is destined to fail all the same, according to you. In which case they'll have to sell as soon as they can and risk shorting their own shares to recoup their initial capital plus the capital for the new aircraft, and getting investigated and thrown into the slammer for it.

Or they could just pull the plug now, absorb relatively small losses and walk away without looking at possible jail time.

And yet they're willing to front up the money. How bizarre. Maybe they know what they're doing?


User currently onlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4982 posts, RR: 42
Reply 89, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2578 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 88):
I see. Well, just to be clear, I really only objected to the swear word you used there. That's a very low level of name-calling which really shouldn't be allowed in any civilized debate. That aside, he hasn't done anything that other Canadian aviation CEOs haven't done. By your own criteria, the man you work for would qualify for the same name you've just called Deluce.

I shall say again for the last time. I don't disagree, but that is not the topic of discussion. A member on here who I respect asked why he was reading "negative" feelings into people's talk of Porter. I answered, why I personally felt negatively towards Porter.

As for a "swear word", I think that is stretching it a bit, as even on-line Websters does not consider the word as profanity. It is NOT complimentary though, but as I am assuming you are guessing, that is not the direction in which I was headed.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 88):
Personally, I wouldn't go around throwing out criteria and assigning offensive language to those who meet it, at least not when the man running one's company actually meets the same criteria. Its brave. Even a little foolhardy.

If you wished to start a thread about the "ethics" of airline CEOs, I would certainly participate. But I wont take the bait here and risk a rather large thread drift.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1019 posts, RR: 4
Reply 90, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2566 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 89):
As for a "swear word", I think that is stretching it a bit, as even on-line Websters does not consider the word as profanity. It is NOT complimentary though, but as I am assuming you are guessing, that is not the direction in which I was headed.

My criteria is simple enough. If you can't use a word in your work place, it is inappropriate in any civilized debate.

I know that if I were to call someone that at work - or, indeed, in a debate - I would be in hot water. But perhaps the rules in your company are different.

As an aside, it is defined as a vulgar phrase, which is a nice way of saying that it is offensive (much like profanity).

Quoting longhauler (Reply 89):
If you wished to start a thread about the "ethics" of airline CEOs, I would certainly participate. But I wont take the bait here and risk a rather large thread drift.

But I'm not.

I'm simply arguing that Deluce be treated like any other CEO and held to the same standard as any other CEO. Given that this thread has turned into an attack on Deluce, I don't think its entirely inappropriate. This is airliners.net. He is the CEO of an airline. As such, any discussion about him should be about him as a CEO of a Candian airline, and in that respect, he should be held to the same standard as any other CEO of any other Canadian airline.

Asking too much?


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6186 posts, RR: 34
Reply 91, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2551 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 88):
Yes, but I don't think its lost on you that everybody on this website knows that Load Factors - high or low - mean nothing unless you know the yield.

AC and WestJet know close enough!  
Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 88):
Porter never releases it.

Of course he never releases it now because its lousy. As soon as soon as he had several months of declining LFs and pax numbers he stopped... while Air Canada and WestJets were increasing

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 88):
What we do know is that it has a bunch of investors who are willing to front up a fair bit of cash for shiny new toys.

They haven't fronted any money for the CSeries. And the Q400 were financed by the EDC.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 88):
They're just as likely to know what they're doing as they are to not know what they're doing. Given that they have this kind of money to throw around (or away, if we go by your reasoning), I don't think its a stretch to suggest that they're generally quite good at what they do.

It isn't "my" reasoning... it is how "seed" money works. You get in first and you (ideally) make out like a bandit on the IPO. But you just have to look at Onex to see that even well respected investment companies lose money on investments. That is why they spread their money around to cover the goose eggs like PD.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 88):
Nope.

Moral relativism! 
Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 88):
Underhanded? Probably.

Certainty.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 88):
A monopoly of what?

The island airport.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 88):
This is a rather disingenuous argument.

No it isn't.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 88):
But one that is destined to fail all the same, according to you.

Without the jets it is. No jets... no IPO.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently onlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4982 posts, RR: 42
Reply 92, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2448 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 90):
I'm simply arguing that Deluce be treated like any other CEO and held to the same standard as any other CEO.

Fine ... but that is not what I was discussing.

I give up.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1019 posts, RR: 4
Reply 93, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2344 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 91):
Without the jets it is. No jets... no IPO.


What good is the IPO if the airline is destined to fail anyway? It still amounts to taking a significant risk - and being investigated if the whole thing is a sham. If I m not mistalen , that's essentially what you think it is - a sham. In that case, why are investors not cutting losses and running?

Quoting planemaker (Reply 91):
The island airport

...which means what? The products are substitutable so there's no monopoly.

What next? AC has a monopoly over the location of the maple leaf lounge it occupies in T1?

Quoting planemaker (Reply 91):
They haven't fronted any money for the CSeries. And the Q400 were financed by the EDC.

Now I m confused. There are investors but there are aren't any investors. EDC put the money in into what has turned out to be a failing venture, so investors are now lining up to throw money into it. Why do they want to invest in it? Why not, apparently.

You're obviously trying to construct a narrative here, but there's holes in it. The biggest one is that we have to work with the assumption that anyone funding Porters new C Series is clueless and lacks the intelligence to come to the same conclusion as you did through open sources. This is possible. However its not probable.


User currently onlinecloudboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 828 posts, RR: 0
Reply 94, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2216 times:

What about connecting traffic? Now that prices are down to a more reasonable level, if Porter starts offering connecting flights to US passengers might that affect both their numbers and operations? I see this with some potential for smaller airports in the northeast (bos-btv for example) but more likely BOS/NYC/BTV to Florida or the west coast, especially if they offer an economy plus level of service.


"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4226 posts, RR: 1
Reply 95, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2160 times:

Quoting ytz (Reply 56):
UPE is really only going to displace airport shuttle bus and cab services. YTZ is simply too convenient for a lot of us to trade in for UPE ride to a worse airport. After all, you're still going to Pearson where check in times are longer and you have to walk further everywhere.

I have to ask where do you fly to from YTZ?

Quoting ytz (Reply 58):
UPE is just not going to be a factor for any regular YTZ traveler who probably already finds YTZ convenient for a myriad of reasons. But if you were going to fly from Pearson? UPE will get you there faster and cheaper.

I would concur that flying from YYZ is where most of the people from Toronto choose to fly from because believe it or not YUL is not the only place people want to fly to from YYZ.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 60):
Quoting ytz (Reply 59):
And the only other stop is Weston.

It will also stop at Bloor.

Same place.

Quoting ytz (Reply 62):
Still doesn't do much if you live in the north or the east. YTZ is still more convenient. And again, it doesn't remove the fact that Pearson has worse service by design.

It is not if you live in Willowdale or the Bayview area.

I don't know what you are talking about if your travels take you to places like FRA, LHR, LAX, MIA, or any place further than 400 KM from Toronto than I would prefer to go to YYZ plus there are better connections to the rest of the world which is what YYZ is wanting as well as most travellers.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6186 posts, RR: 34
Reply 96, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2138 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 93):
What good is the IPO if the airline is destined to fail anyway?

That is why they need the jets. Without the jets... no IPO.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 93):
In that case, why are investors not cutting losses and running?

Apart from the intial "seed" investment when PD was started, none of the investors have invested anything more. They are "locked in". Their only way to recoup their investment is through an IPO.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 93):
...which means what?

It is a public airport and other airlines do not have access because of PD. That is a monopoly.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 93):
Now I m confused.

It is apparent.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 93):
so investors are now lining up to throw money into it.

There are no investors lining up to throw money into it.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 95):
Same place.

It isn't. There is the Bloor/Dundas stop and there is the Weston Stop.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1019 posts, RR: 4
Reply 97, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2097 times:

Quoting brilondon (Reply 95):
I would concur that flying from YYZ is where most of the people from Toronto choose to fly from because believe it or not YUL is not the only place people want to fly to from YYZ.

I think we can take it for granted on this thread that any comparison between Toronto Island and Pearson is limited only to those routes that are served from both of them. Intrigued to see that PD operates to 16 airports from Toronto Island (18 if you include seasonals). Surprised really - thought it served less.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 95):
It is not if you live in Willowdale or the Bayview area.

It is if you're using public transit. If you're driving, the UPE and TTC are largely irrelevant in how convenient either airport is. I stay at the Novo in North York Center quite often. As things stand, from a public transit perspective, Toronto City is far easier to get to than Pearson (I believe there's a Go bus that operates from York Mills - never bothered using it). And that's not going to change with the express train.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 96):
That is why they need the jets. Without the jets... no IPO.

Repeating yourself isn't going to change anything. What is the point of having an IPO to recoup money when the only way to hold the IPO is to spend literally millions?

Quoting planemaker (Reply 96):
Apart from the intial "seed" investment when PD was started, none of the investors have invested anything more. They are "locked in". Their only way to recoup their investment is through an IPO.

...but EDC fronted the money for the actual aircraft, which suggests that their level of seed money investment isn't all that high. Why, then, would they give more money to buy jets to a venture that, you insist, is bound to fail. To recoup their money from a failing investment? They would be investigated for that. Why are they risking it instead of cutting their losses?

Quoting planemaker (Reply 96):
It is a public airport and other airlines do not have access because of PD. That is a monopoly.

Sure. And AC has a monopoly over the area of a public airport called Pearson that is occupied by its flagship Maple Leaf Lounge. What exactly is your point? That every other lounge in Pearson is at a competitive disadvantage? Should the area used by the Maple Leaf Lounge be carved up and handed out to everyone who asks?

I don't think you realize the implications of your own arguments.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 96):
There are no investors lining up to throw money into it.

Then where is the money for the jets coming from? Is Deluce buying them all by himself?


User currently offlinejalarner From Canada, joined Apr 2007, 46 posts, RR: 0
Reply 98, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2060 times:

Quoting brilondon (Reply 95):
Quoting planemaker (Reply 60):
Quoting ytz (Reply 59):
And the only other stop is Weston.

It will also stop at Bloor.

Same place.
http://www.upexpress.com/en/project/stations.aspx

Different stations.



Support air cadets!
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6186 posts, RR: 34
Reply 99, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2033 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 97):
Repeating yourself isn't going to change anything. What is the point of having an IPO to recoup money when the only way to hold the IPO is to spend literally millions?

I repeat because I thought you were ignoring my point but now I understand that you don't comprehend. You do not need to spend millions to try to issue an IPO... you just need a plausible growth story. It is a simple concept. The jets potentially enables that plausible growth story. No jets... no growth story... no IPO.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 97):
...but EDC fronted the money for the actual aircraft, which suggests that their level of seed money investment

EDC financing isn't "seed investment".

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 97):
That every other lounge in Pearson

Your analogy attempt isn't even close to viable. The is no monopoly of lounges at Pearson... every airline that wants to have a lounge has one. Unlike at YTZ where Porter has a monopoly.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 97):
Then where is the money for the jets coming from? Is Deluce buying them all by himself?

It isn't "is" but "would". It would be asset based financing... not "investing".



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1019 posts, RR: 4
Reply 100, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1966 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 99):
I repeat because I thought you were ignoring my point but now I understand that you don't comprehend.

Its true. I have a very hard time comprehending spin-riddled stories riddled with inconsistencies.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 99):
You do not need to spend millions to try to issue an IPO... you just need a plausible growth story. It is a simple concept. The jets potentially enables that plausible growth story. No jets... no growth story... no IPO.

Indeed. But you do need to spend millions to buy new aircraft. If you tell a plausible growth story with no intention of buying the aircraft, you're probably going to end up in court.

Consider your own narrative here. The seed investors need the jets story to get an IPO. Here are the two most likely outcomes:

1) The various levels of government say no, in which case the jets story is over and so is the IPO.
2) The various levels of government say yes, in which case they issue the IPO on the basis of buying the jets. Granted in this case, they either have to buy the jets (millions of $$$s) or they renege on it (and risk getting sued for millions of $$$s).

Therein lies one of the biggest inconsistencies in your story. You're either saying they are actually planning to buy the aircraft, or you are accusing them of trying to dupe the public into believing they're buying aircraft they have no intention of buying. Both risk costing them a heck of a lot of money. Why wouldn't they just consider it a bad investment and cut and run now? They presumably have access to the same open sources you do (you know, the ones that helped you come to the conclusion that PD is a failing/failed carrier)

Quoting planemaker (Reply 99):
EDC financing isn't "seed investment".

No, but EDC funded the purchase of the aircraft, which is a significant capital cost. If EDC funds were used for buying the aircraft, then the logical assumption is that the seed investors did not fund the purchase of the aircraft. In fact, it effectively means that they didn't put in as much money as they would have if their funds were used to buy all the aircraft. In other words, if they cut and run now, their losses won't be as great, since EDC will be absorbing a good chunk of it.

Therein lies another inconsistency in this tale you're spinning. The seed investors are "stuck", but they don't actually shoulder the burden for one of the main capital costs, so how heavily invested in this are they?

Incidentally, I find it interesting that Export Development Canada is funding the purchase of Canadian aircraft by a Canadian company. That said, I suppose it makes sense given that they provided hundreds of millions to bail AC out in 2009.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 99):
The is no monopoly of lounges at Pearson... every airline that wants to have a lounge has one. Unlike at Toronto Island where Porter has a monopoly.

Exactly. And there is no monopoly on flights out of Toronto. Every Canadian airline that wants a flight out of Toronto has one. I think we've established that on the relevant ex-Toronto routes, flights from Pearson are substitutable for flights from Toronto Island (and vice versa), thanks, in no small part, to AC's own demonstration of this fact when it pulled out of Toronto Island. All that differs is the location of the (substitutable) service provided. Much like the lounges at Pearson. If an airline decides it wants a lounge in the same place as MLL, is it incumbent on the airport authority to carve a chunk out and give it to them? I think not.

Here's the logical flaw. A flight from Toronto Island to Timmins/wherever competes with a flight from Pearson to Timmins/wherever. Consumers have choice between all the airlines that fly between Toronto - Timmins/wherever. Ergo, no monopoly.

Any claims of monopoly make for fun soundbites, but the economic basis for the claim doesn't really exist.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 99):
It isn't "is" but "would". It would be asset based financing... not "investing".

Spin it however you want, Deluce is going to need financial backing from somewhere. Or 'would' need...or whatever you want to call it.

[Edited 2014-04-01 13:49:32]

[Edited 2014-04-01 13:50:44]

User currently offlineytz From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 24
Reply 101, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 1885 times:

Quoting brilondon (Reply 95):
I have to ask where do you fly to from YTZ?

I have taken Porter to YOW, YUL and BOS.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 95):
I would concur that flying from YYZ is where most of the people from Toronto choose to fly from because believe it or not YUL is not the only place people want to fly to from YYZ.

What's your point? YTZ is a regional airport. Porter is a regional airport. If you are flying to any of their 16-18 destinations, they are an option.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 95):
Same place.

No it is not. Look up the UPE website or Wiki. They have a Weston and a Bloor stop at Bloor GO/Dundas West TTC stop.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 95):
It is not if you live in Willowdale or the Bayview area.

By transit? I don't think so. And certainly not by solely using the TTC. That's one of YTZ's big advantages. The airport is properly accessible by public transit. TTC anywhere in the 416 and GO to Union from the 905.

And by car, the time it takes to access both YYZ and YTZ are roughly the same from Willowdale. But YYZ is much less accessible the further east you go.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 95):
I don't know what you are talking about if your travels take you to places like FRA, LHR, LAX, MIA, or any place further than 400 KM from Toronto than I would prefer to go to YYZ plus there are better connections to the rest of the world which is what YYZ is wanting as well as most travellers.

Obvious statement is obvious. Has anybody suggested that they'd travel to to FRA, LHR, LAX or MIA through YTZ?

Again. It's a regional airport. It serves regional destinations with a regional airline. It does so well enough.


User currently offlineytz From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 24
Reply 102, posted (5 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1860 times:

The whole AC getting kicked out business....

Like EP said, "kicked out" is a stretch at best. They had no entitlement to stay beyond their lease.

But the bigger picture, AC deserves its fate on this front. They had ample opportunity before Porter and Deluce showed up to make something of YTZ. They could have easily set up a small boutique service. They didn't want that. So they consolidated at YYZ and made the argument, as EP pointed out, that the services at YYZ were a similarly-convenient replacement for YTZ.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. The airport has an interest in not having an airline that wanted to essentially run a bench warmer service to keep competition out. The airport has an interest in having operators who are interested in growing traffic there. Moreover, I'd argue there is a public interest in the airport having a busy operator, as shown by the fact that airport actually now makes money. There's also the not-so-convenient fact that since PD arrived on the scene, fares in the TOM triangle have dropped, according to Statscan. One of the few markets to actually see fares drop. Clearly, PD is having an impact, and a positive one for the public's wider economic interests.

AC could have done everything PD is doing at YTZ and more. They could have turned YTZ into Toronto's LCY. It would have been a good yielding operation for them too. They simply didn't have the vision and wherewithal to do that.


User currently offlineradiopolitic From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 113 posts, RR: 0
Reply 103, posted (5 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1810 times:

Based on the all the amendments that were passed on top of the staff report today at council - I doubt we will be seeing jets or airport expansion anytime soon.

I could be wrong but there are a lot of conditions on there that will be tough to meet from a port authority that has already shown it is unwilling to make basic concessions.


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6186 posts, RR: 34
Reply 104, posted (5 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1798 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 100):
If you tell a plausible growth story with no intention of buying the aircraft, you're probably going to end up in court.

Not only did I never say that they have "no" intention of buying aircraft but you've demonstrating that you have never read an IPO's pages of standard "weasel" clauses. Not including the standard Forward-looking Statements and other clauses spread throughout there were 10 pages of Risks in Porter's IPO. If they would ever get to a "jets" IPO the number of Risk pages will be even longer! 

Furthermore, even if they ever do get to a "plausible" growth story, there is no guarantee that the market will buy the valuation... just as it didn't the last two times.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 100):
Incidentally, I find it interesting that Export Development Canada is funding the purchase of Canadian aircraft by a Canadian company.

This is public knowledge!

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 100):
Any claims of monopoly make for fun soundbites, but the economic basis for the claim doesn't really exist.

Every financial analyst and journalist that has commentated on Porter's IPO has unequivocally stated that Porter's monopoly at YTZ is critical to its survival.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineBravo1Six From Canada, joined Dec 2007, 397 posts, RR: 2
Reply 105, posted (5 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1687 times:

Ah, the "taxpayers are funding XYZ airline" argument. Well, EDC can only finance a maximum of 85 percent, so at least 15 percent (and likely more) needs to come from somewhere. And no one in Canada has ever, ever, ever financed a Boeing or Airbus using taxpayer dollars.........

Must be ok to use the taxpayer dollars of an American or European but not ok to use those of a Canadian.


User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1019 posts, RR: 4
Reply 106, posted (5 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1552 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 104):
Not only did I never say that they have "no" intention of buying aircraft but you've demonstrating that you have never read an IPO's pages of standard "weasel" clauses. Not including the standard Forward-looking Statements and other clauses spread throughout there were 10 pages of Risks in Porter's IPO. If they would ever get to a "jets" IPO the number of Risk pages will be even longer! Furthermore, even if they ever do get to a "plausible" growth story, there is no guarantee that the market will buy the valuation... just as it didn't the last two times.

Right. So they will buy the jets if they can and this might well prove to be a gamechanger, but you don't want to entertain that thought because another successful Canadian airline is not a good thing in your mind.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 104):
This is public knowledge!

Never said its not. Just found it very interesting. Didn't think it would fall under EDC's mandate.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 104):
Every financial analyst and journalist that has commentated on Porter's IPO has unequivocally stated that Porter's monopoly at YTZ is critical to its survival.

A monopoly that doesn't exist then, since AC does technically fly from the airport (where it chooses to fly is its own prerogative). That aside, it stands to reason that if you try to take slots away from PD at an airport that is maxed out, they are going to have to drop routes. Forcing an airline to scale back operations tends to have an impact.

Quoting Bravo1Six (Reply 105):
Ah, the "taxpayers are funding XYZ airline" argument. Well, EDC can only finance a maximum of 85 percent, so at least 15 percent (and likely more) needs to come from somewhere. And no one in Canada has ever, ever, ever financed a Boeing or Airbus using taxpayer dollars.........Must be ok to use the taxpayer dollars of an American or European but not ok to use those of a Canadian.

If you're referring to my post, I really don't have an issue with this.


User currently offlineBravo1Six From Canada, joined Dec 2007, 397 posts, RR: 2
Reply 107, posted (5 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1452 times:

No, was referring to the mock outrage of an airline receiving taxpayer support.

Incidentally, EDC actually makes money for the Canadian taxpayers, and their governing legislation does indeed allow them to finance within Canada as part of their mandate.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26493 posts, RR: 75
Reply 108, posted (5 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1143 times:

Quoting KLSMB (Reply 21):
Flight costs at all Canadian airports are overpriced because of Federal Government fees and regulations

That is completely incorrect. It is due to airlines pricing differently.

Quoting KLSMB (Reply 21):
This has been an issue as long as I can remember, and it's the only reason why flights from US airports often cost so much less.

That is completely and totally wrong.

Know what the difference in the tax portion of a flight to BUF as opposed to YYZ is? About $45 USD, and much of that is charged by the US.

Quoting cloudboy (Reply 47):
I beg to differ - I think Porter's success, at least in terms of their Us service - is precisely because they are a bit old fashioned in their service level.

Not really. Its essentially all based on location.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 50):
The rail link will not drive any traffic away from YTZ to YYZ.

Keep thinking that.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlinedrgmobile From Canada, joined Aug 2006, 640 posts, RR: 0
Reply 109, posted (5 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1015 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 108):
That is completely incorrect. It is due to airlines pricing differently.

This has been studied extensively. While there is a difference in the base fare, government policy related fees and taxes contribute about 40 percent of the price differential between Canada and the U.S. , according to the Conference Board of Canada.


User currently offlinedrgmobile From Canada, joined Aug 2006, 640 posts, RR: 0
Reply 110, posted (5 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1012 times:

Quoting cloudboy (Reply 94):
What about connecting traffic? Now that prices are down to a more reasonable level, if Porter starts offering connecting flights to US passengers might that affect both their numbers and operations? I see this with some potential for smaller airports in the northeast (bos-btv for example) but more likely BOS/NYC/BTV to Florida or the west coast, especially if they offer an economy plus level of service.

Lots of people already use Porter to connect. I know lots of people in Ottawa who use it to get to Chicago or New York.


User currently onlinecloudboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 828 posts, RR: 0
Reply 111, posted (5 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 945 times:

But, I am thinking there might be a market for people from BOS or even NYC or Chicago who would connect through Toronto on Porter on their way down to Florida. Especially as the elite levels of the SU domestics have dried up, Porter makes a nice alternative to B6.


"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
User currently offlinedrgmobile From Canada, joined Aug 2006, 640 posts, RR: 0
Reply 112, posted (5 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 939 times:

Quoting cloudboy (Reply 111):
But, I am thinking there might be a market for people from BOS or even NYC or Chicago who would connect through Toronto on Porter on their way down to Florida. Especially as the elite levels of the SU domestics have dried up, Porter makes a nice alternative to B6.

That's not legal. Under the current Canada-U.S. bilateral it's considered cabotage. Someone could buy back to back tickets but that would hardly be economical.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Porter Airlines - Toronto YTZ Expansion Update posted Thu Jul 18 2013 16:01:45 by Noise
Porter Airlines - YTZ-EWR 11x Daily! posted Tue Aug 3 2010 14:14:43 by aamd11
Early Results For Porter Airlines At MDW posted Thu Nov 20 2008 11:34:15 by EWRandMDW
Porter Airlines Preps For Departure In Toronto:) posted Fri Oct 6 2006 07:09:10 by CF188A
AC Jazz Not Back At YTZ Soon posted Tue Aug 8 2006 22:41:12 by NorthStarDC4M
Piedmont Airlines Service At CMH posted Fri Feb 7 2014 21:08:05 by doulasc
Jets At Waterloo (Iowa) After 1988? posted Thu Jan 2 2014 10:31:55 by timz
Porter Q400 Damaged At YAM Back In Service? posted Fri Jul 19 2013 17:28:53 by aamd11
Porter Airlines In Interline Deal With Icelandair posted Wed Jul 17 2013 12:56:34 by HanginOut
Why Is Frontier Airlines E-190 At Burbank? posted Mon Jan 28 2013 20:51:46 by foppishbum
Porter Q400 Damaged At YAM Back In Service? posted Fri Jul 19 2013 17:28:53 by aamd11
Porter Airlines In Interline Deal With Icelandair posted Wed Jul 17 2013 12:56:34 by HanginOut
Porter Airlines Preps For Departure In Toronto:) posted Fri Oct 6 2006 07:09:10 by CF188A
AC Jazz Not Back At YTZ Soon posted Tue Aug 8 2006 22:41:12 by NorthStarDC4M
Piedmont Airlines Service At CMH posted Fri Feb 7 2014 21:08:05 by doulasc
Jets At Waterloo (Iowa) After 1988? posted Thu Jan 2 2014 10:31:55 by timz
Porter Q400 Damaged At YAM Back In Service? posted Fri Jul 19 2013 17:28:53 by aamd11
Porter Airlines In Interline Deal With Icelandair posted Wed Jul 17 2013 12:56:34 by HanginOut