Trudeau Gov't Confirms No Jets @ YTZ

StarAC17 · Sat Nov 07, 2015 4:45 pm

Quoting drgmobile (Reply 9):
I don't understand what this even means. "Risking Toronto." Are you suggesting public opinion in the city is against the airport expansion? If so, do you have data to support this?

In the downtown, it is!! Much of the support in Toronto is from areas that are not near YTZ.

Quoting YTZ" class="quote" target="_blank">YTZ (Reply 29):
In any event, if citizens in my hometown are determined to shoot themselves in the foot....they'll soon find out that it's hard to pay the bills when you build an economy on selling condos to each other on funny money from the central bank (read: quantitative easing and ZIRP.....). Let's get rid of YTZ and turn that into an utterly unproductive park (because somehow there's a lack of that on the Islands or elsewhere in the downtown core).

Giving an airline a taxpayer funded cheque to expand and use a downtown airport is not going to fix Toronto's problems. Yes Toronto needs to improve it's infrastructure to attract new business and make itself more competitive but there is more pressing priorities than expanding YTZ.

Quoting rampbro (Reply 5):
This is a shame. I think there's a bigger play going on here with Bombardier, and my suspicion is that it involves rail travel as opposed to air travel.

Well the city of Toronto is planning to sue Bombardier for late streetcars.

While some want YTZ killed. I think many are willing to accept the status quo and those with property on the waterfront do not what an expanded YTZ.

Quoting YTZ" class="quote" target="_blank">YTZ (Reply 10):
This is probably the end of Porter too. I expect fares out of the GTA to skyrocket if that happens.

If PD's is putting all their eggs in YTZ then it really isn't a good business model.

Quoting YYZAMS (Reply 16):
The continued argument of NOJETS TO and other uninformed people say is "just fly out of YYZ with the CSeries" but they fail to realize that YYZ is the top 5 most expensive landing fees in the world. If it were that easy they would.

IIRC all airlines at YYZ pay the same landing fees so it would really come down to the survival of the fittest as every airline pays the same cost. If it came out that the GTAA was

Quoting YTZ" class="quote" target="_blank">YTZ (Reply 29):
Survive sure. But sometimes I think my naive downtown neighbours don't get economics.

Perhaps their economic interests are maintaining their real estate values and having a pleasant waterfront.

As said most major cities on bodies of water do not have an airport on their waterfronts and they survive fine. Cities comparable to Toronto such as Chicago and Sydney make their waterfronts a point of attraction to their cities.

Quoting YTZ" class="quote" target="_blank">YTZ (Reply 29):
I'd agree with shutting YTZ if there was High Speed Rail to Ottawa and Montreal (at a minimum). Even then, the loss of connectivity from the downtown core to New York and Chicago is bound to have some economic impact. The Union-Pearson Express is just not as convenient or time-efficient.....

That should be debated.

mercure1 · Sat Nov 07, 2015 4:53 pm

Bravo.

Its was ridiculous concept to change rules for single airline seeking to operate at a single airport, particularly when the concept was not enthusiastically supported by locals which would be the most effected at the end.

Nothing stops Porter from seeking other opportunities at YYZ, YHM or another other suitable Canada airport if its insistent on larger jet operations.

diverted · Sat Nov 07, 2015 4:59 pm

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 49):
Already done via BOS. PD should enquire of about starting JFK service to link up with B6 there as well.

They've been begging US CBP for years for preclearance. The pax numbers are there, but I think the CBP is hesitant to set up preclearance for one airline. Trust me, I'd love if they served DCA instead of IAD or JFK instead of EWR.

bmacleod · Sat Nov 07, 2015 6:53 pm

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 50):
While some want YTZ killed. I think many are willing to accept the status quo and those with property on the waterfront do not what an expanded YTZ.

Whoaa...hold on!!! Wow!

Who said anything about shutting down YTZ?

Don't they realize the pax market value of that airport?

[Edited 2015-11-07 10:59:08]

diverted · Sat Nov 07, 2015 7:10 pm

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 53):
Whoaa...hold on!!!

Who said anything about shutting down YTZ?

Don't they realize the pax market value of that airport?

You are aware that pretty much all of the "nojetsto" people are more like "closeYTZ" than anything else right? The proposed expansion just gave them another platform to spew the same crap they did when PD first launched. Funny story, on day 1 of PD's ops, the first flight departed and all the protestors COMPLETELY missed it because they were the ones making all the noise.

Mr. Vaughan himself was one of the vocal protestors in 2006. He's not against jets, he's against the airport. Here's what he had to say about that little airline that now employs over 1500 people, and provides a fair bit of economic activity...

Quote:
“This is a funny protest,” said Adam Vaughan, candidate for councillor of Ward 20, where the entrance to the airport is located. “How do you protest something that no one is going to use?

“Airlines usually start off with a bang and sort of quickly whimper out. This one is starting out with a whimper and it’s just going to go thud.”

I guess Mr. Vaughan considers 2.5million people a year to be nobody. Which would also explain how he considers the entire city of Toronto to be "nobody," hence his self serving lip flapping all the time. He's like a child who got their toy taken away.

source: http://spacing.ca/toronto/2006/10/23/protests-greet-porter-airlines/

planemaker · Sat Nov 07, 2015 7:57 pm

Quoting diverted (Reply 54):
You are aware that pretty much all of the "nojetsto" people are more like "closeYTZ" than anything else right?

They want to turn the airport into a park.

Quoting diverted (Reply 54):
now employs over 1500 people, and provides a fair bit of economic activity...

But not all of them in Toronto. And it isn't a zero sum game... people flying PD would fly AC or Westjet anyway if PD did not exist. The net economic impact is actually relatively small.

Quoting diverted (Reply 54):
I guess Mr. Vaughan considers 2.5million people a year to be nobody.

That is very misleading because it isn't anywhere near 2.5 million "people" a year flying on PD (that would mean almost the entire population of the City of Toronto). The 2.5 million "people" you state is the number of seats occupied on all flights. So right off the bat the number drops to ~1.25 since almost all tickets are return (same "people"). And then you have to factor how many times a person flies on PD. Business people can easily fly 12 or more times a year, especially on the Eastern Triangle... so the number of "people" that have actually used PD is cut even further. And even if the Island Airport didn't exist, those business people would still be travelling via Pearson.

[Edited 2015-11-07 12:03:09]

diverted · Sun Nov 08, 2015 10:42 am

Quoting planemaker (Reply 55):
That is very misleading because it isn't anywhere near 2.5 million "people" a year flying on PD (that would mean almost the entire population of the City of Toronto). The 2.5 million "people" you state is the number of seats occupied on all flights. So right off the bat the number drops to ~1.25 since almost all tickets are return (same "people"). And then you have to factor how many times a person flies on PD. Business people can easily fly 12 or more times a year, especially on the Eastern Triangle... so the number of "people" that have actually used PD is cut even further. And even if the Island Airport didn't exist, those business people would still be travelling via Pearson.

Fair. 2.5 million pax per year. Not individuals, for sure.

Either way, my point still stands. Vaughan is a bag of hot air with a huge ego.

yyz717 · Sun Nov 08, 2015 2:23 pm

Quoting planemaker (Reply 55):
Quoting diverted (Reply 54):now employs over 1500 people, and provides a fair bit of economic activity...
But not all of them in Toronto. And it isn't a zero sum game... people flying PD would fly AC or Westjet anyway if PD did not exist. The net economic impact is actually relatively small.

PD has created new business (a la Southwest effect) by adding flights to a convenient downtown airport. If PD collapses, some of the business would migrate to YYZ, but a lot would actually dry up. Additionally, the economic activity that PD has brought to the DT core is huge - this includes many jobs to a relatively poor area of DT west. All this economic activity would be lost if PD shot down.

Quoting diverted (Reply 56):
Either way, my point still stands. Vaughan is a bag of hot air with a huge ego.

Agreed. Vaughan may speak for his riding Spadina-Fort York, but he does not speak for all of Toronto nor the Federal Government.

Skywatcher · Sun Nov 08, 2015 3:40 pm

I guess I missed it somewhere but does anybody know 1) what would the cost of the runway extension be? and 2) who would pay?

planemaker · Sun Nov 08, 2015 6:47 pm

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 57):
PD has created new business (a la Southwest effect) by adding flights to a convenient downtown airport. If PD collapses, some of the business would migrate to YYZ, but a lot would actually dry up.

Undoubtedly there is some new tourism but there is no data to support the assertion of a "Southwest Effect". The majority of PD's seats are on the Eastern Triangle which is already extremely well served with AC on the Island, AC and Westjet at Malton... and Via Rail. So there is absolutely no data to indicate that "a lot would actually dry up".

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 57):
Additionally, the economic activity that PD has brought to the DT core is huge - this includes many jobs to a relatively poor area of DT west.

There is some additional economic activity but where is the data showing the "huge" net additional economic activity? The net additional jobs? If it were indeed "HUGE" there would be a breakdown of the net additional impacts... but there isn't.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 57):
All this economic activity would be lost if PD shot down.

Only the net additional economic activity might be lost. AC has complained that they don't have sufficient slots at the Island, PD has ~212 and AC has ~30. Moreover, Encore wants to fly from the Island and has complained that it doesn't have any slots.

'

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 57):
Vaughan may speak for his riding Spadina-Fort York, but he does not speak for all of Toronto nor the Federal Government.

It isn't just Vaughan...

Quote:
Nine Toronto Liberal MPs — including Adam Vaughan, Carolyn Bennett and Chrystia Freeland — informed city council of the party's position in a June 4 letter.

"The Liberal Party's policies on the waterfront are as clear as they are forward looking," the letter said.

I was surprised that Harper had also shut the door in the summer...

Quote:
The decision was also made clear in June, in a letter from the Harper government to Toronto Mayor John Tory: "We have pledged not to re-open the tripartite agreement." The letter, obtained by CTV News on Tuesday, was dated June 4, 2015.

DCAfan · Sun Nov 08, 2015 8:18 pm

Quoting diverted (Reply 52):

I agree. I have a hard time reconciling ARN getting preclearance but not YTZ. In addition I don't quite understand the objection to Porter's ambition to provide jet service at YTZ as it would enhance competition in the Toronto market.

yyz717 · Sun Nov 08, 2015 8:26 pm

Quoting planemaker (Reply 59):
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 57):PD has created new business (a la Southwest effect) by adding flights to a convenient downtown airport. If PD collapses, some of the business would migrate to YYZ, but a lot would actually dry up.
Undoubtedly there is some new tourism but there is no data to support the assertion of a "Southwest Effect".

As YTZ has grown to handle 2M+ pax from zero in 2006, there has not been a corresponding 2M+ drop in YYZ pax numbers. Indeed AC has maintained its capacity on YYZ-YUL-YOW and WS has added capacity since PD started, and have added YYZ-LGA. Clearly, PD is generating new traffic, and not just diverting pax from YYZ.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 59):
There is some additional economic activity but where is the data showing the "huge" net additional economic activity? The net additional jobs? If it were indeed "HUGE" there would be a breakdown of the net additional impacts... but there isn't.

PD has created 1000+ direct and indirect jobs since creation, and yet there has not been a 1000+ job DECREASE at YYZ by AC and WS caused by a diversion of passengers to YTZ (which you claim to be the primary source of YTZ passengers, although without supporting data).

INFINITI329 · Sun Nov 08, 2015 8:31 pm

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 57):
PD has created new business (a la Southwest effect) by adding flights to a convenient downtown airport. If PD collapses, some of the business would migrate to YYZ, but a lot would actually dry up. Additionally, the economic activity that PD has brought to the DT core is huge - this includes many jobs to a relatively poor area of DT west. All this economic activity would be lost if PD shot down.

This is why the new Canadian government needs give PD its day in court. Don't just close door on them before hearing them out. They must consider the great economic impact this project will have. it will support Canadian jobs from every corner. Canadian Airport, Canadian Airline, Canadian Contractors, Canadian Airplanes ... #JETS4YTZ

ytz · Sun Nov 08, 2015 10:44 pm

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 62):

Lol. Since when do politicians actually care about jobs and economics? This current federal government has campaigned on "No jets.". I actually wouldn't be surprised if they try to kill the airport itself. I'd be genuinely worried if I were a PD investor.

planemaker · Sun Nov 08, 2015 11:17 pm

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 61):
As YTZ has grown to handle 2M+ pax from zero in 2006, there has not been a corresponding 2M+ drop in YYZ pax numbers.

Numbers are not going to drop because of economic growth. The population and economies of Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto, for example, have grown in the almost 10 years since PD started operation. All domestic and transborder air traffic has grown. One only has to look at the pax numbers at the top Canadian airports over the same 10 year period.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 61):
PD has created 1000+ direct and indirect jobs since creation

That is what they claim but the number is disputed because the impact studies use multipliers and not actual jobs. In any case, even that number is marginal... it represents less than 0.17% of employment in the City of Toronto. In comparison, Pearson employs over 40,000 directly. And the economic impact is also marginal... representing less than 0.14% of the City of Toronto's economy.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 61):
which you claim to be the primary source of YTZ passengers, although without supporting data).

Look at Porter's schedule.

unityofsaints · Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:37 am

Quoting planemaker (Reply 17):
That was then. Now there is 25 minute public transit from Pearson to Union Station.

That's good but 38$ return for the casual tourist? That can add serious $$ to the cost of your trip compared to just walking to YTZ.

Viscount724 · Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:44 am

Quoting unityofsaints (Reply 66):
Quoting planemaker (Reply 17):
That was then. Now there is 25 minute public transit from Pearson to Union Station.

That's good but 38$ return for the casual tourist? That can add serious $$ to the cost of your trip compared to just walking to YTZ.

If you don't mind it taking about an hour, public transit to YYZ is only $3 ($2 if you're over 65). It's quite convenient if you don't have a lot of baggage. Subway (metro) to the end of the line then frequent express bus every 10 minutes or so to the airport.

planemaker · Mon Nov 09, 2015 2:18 am

Quoting YTZ (Reply 63):
Lol. Since when do politicians actually care about jobs and economics? This current federal government has campaigned on "No jets.". I actually wouldn't be surprised if they try to kill the airport itself.

Certainly they wouldn't try to kill it this term in office. Perhaps if they ever build a high speed rail link between Toronto and Montreal.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 63):
I'd be genuinely worried if I were a PD investor.

It will be interesting to see how things go forward with the investors... they would like to monetize their investment and PD getting jets would probably have been their best opportunity to try another IPO.

airnorth · Mon Nov 09, 2015 2:42 am

more fuel for the debate from Sylvains blog:

http://www.fliegerfaust.com/the-tax-...-me-first-rob-ford-1444585355.html

Including a quote from the new Transport Minister Garneau.

Responded Garneau: "It certainly was something expressed by a number of Toronto Liberal MPs going back a while. At the moment, as I understand it, there is still a study that is underway that was commissioned by the Toronto city council as to what the advantages and disadvantages would be. At the moment that is the current situation with it."

planemaker · Mon Nov 09, 2015 3:34 am

Quoting airnorth (Reply 68):
more fuel for the debate from Sylvains blog:

That was some crafty political response. Talk about punting the ball down the field to the City of Toronto.

INFINITI329 · Mon Nov 09, 2015 3:45 am

Quoting airnorth (Reply 68):
Responded Garneau: "It certainly was something expressed by a number of Toronto Liberal MPs going back a while. At the moment, as I understand it, there is still a study that is underway that was commissioned by the Toronto city council as to what the advantages and disadvantages would be. At the moment that is the current situation with it."

So not a no as others have stated. I think the federal government will allow the City of Toronto to make the decision and back whatever that decision is.

Skydrol · Mon Nov 09, 2015 4:02 am

One of the main problems with YTZ is politicians caving to the 274 people living on Wards Island who will roadblock any operational expansion or change which they determine as 'jet noise'. Suppressing ops at an airport which essentially serves a metro area of 3 million.

LD4

planemaker · Mon Nov 09, 2015 4:29 am

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 70):
So not a no as others have stated. I think the federal government will allow the City of Toronto to make the decision and back whatever that decision is.

This is politics. And punting the ball to the City gives the Cabinet time to not have to say no. It is similar to how Obama kept using the State Department to put off declaring his position on Keystone XL for many years. There are nine Toronto MPs and 3 Toronto Cabinet members on the record as being against jets. The Cabinet will hope that the City of Toronto will do them the favour of saying no.

czbbflier · Mon Nov 09, 2015 6:19 am

Transport Minister Marc Garneau's answer in this video is far from conclusive.
http://youtu.be/lKyV_zQ4v1w

Liberals have a long history of saying one thing in elections and doing something else in government. Garneau's acknowledges the opposition among Liberal MPs but they're not in cabinet.

planemaker · Mon Nov 09, 2015 6:59 am

Quoting czbbflier (Reply 73):
acknowledges the opposition among Liberal MPs but they're not in cabinet.

Of the 9 Toronto MPs against the jets, 3 of them are in Cabinet. And one of them is International Trade Minister.

[Edited 2015-11-08 23:39:12]

cloudboy · Mon Nov 09, 2015 1:50 pm

Quoting planemaker (Reply 55):
But not all of them in Toronto. And it isn't a zero sum game... people flying PD would fly AC or Westjet anyway if PD did not exist. The net economic impact is actually relatively small.

Um, no. Passengers are not a commodity. Airlines not only serve the people who are trying to get out of Toronto, but those trying to visit Toronto. And in both cases, one very big option is to not take that trip. Which is why having Porter as an alternative is so important. Porter did a lot to bring airfares down, especially for Americans who were looking to visit Canada. AC is not know for being competitively priced - they tried to enjoy their near monopoly. Do away with PD, and the AC and WS get to set the price they want, which will discourage a large number of travelers.

YXXMIKE · Mon Nov 09, 2015 2:04 pm

Quoting czbbflier (Reply 73):
Liberals have a long history of saying one thing in elections and doing something else in government. Garneau's acknowledges the opposition among Liberal MPs but they're not in cabinet.

I think we can put all governments into the say one thing during an election and do another when elected!

Quoting cloudboy (Reply 75):
Um, no. Passengers are not a commodity. Airlines not only serve the people who are trying to get out of Toronto, but those trying to visit Toronto. And in both cases, one very big option is to not take that trip. Which is why having Porter as an alternative is so important. Porter did a lot to bring airfares down, especially for Americans who were looking to visit Canada. AC is not know for being competitively priced - they tried to enjoy their near monopoly. Do away with PD, and the AC and WS get to set the price they want, which will discourage a large number of travelers.

There isn't any point in debating with our Plane Making friend from Tuvalu - he's only on this forum to be anti c-series at all costs...just don't feed him; it's not worth it.

I'll stick by what I've said before - this isn't over and will get dragged out for years.

AirbusCanada · Mon Nov 09, 2015 3:50 pm

Quoting planemaker (Reply 17):
That was then. Now there is 25 minute public transit from Pearson to Union Station.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 55):
But not all of them in Toronto. And it isn't a zero sum game... people flying PD would fly AC or Westjet anyway if PD did not exist. The net economic impact is actually relatively small.

Despite being a Aeroplan member and Air Canada share holder, who happens to fly between NYC and Toronto quite oftern, I have never flown Air Canada on that route for the following reaon

1. I do not fly for business on that route, so i am paying out of pocket, last minute flights are lot cheaper on porter than AirCanada.
2. If you live in NJ, so its' much more convenient for me to drive to Toronto rather than cross the Hudson in rush hour in order to catch a flight from LGY or JFK.
3. Much more convenient for me to take the public transport to Eastern GTA from Downtown vs. YYZ.

My choices are usually are between drive between NJ-Toronto or take Porter. Most of the time it comes to Price.

It is never a zero sum games in short haul routes where people has plenty of alternatives like Rental Car, Bus and the train.

drgmobile · Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:00 pm

Quoting YYZFAN (Reply 11):
Not to be condescending, but if you paid any attention to the airport disucssions happening in Toronto the past few years, you wouldn't be asking any of these questions.

It was your writing I found unclear. I followed the debate. The commitments of both opposition candidates in the campaign to oppose the jet plan were clear, as were the positions of the groups involved. There are several sides and views on this story, however, so when I see somebody making sweeping statements that talk about "losing Toronto," I'm curious which version of the story they're trying to put forward.

[Edited 2015-11-09 14:01:34]

planemaker · Tue Nov 10, 2015 8:22 am

Quoting cloudboy (Reply 75):
And in both cases, one very big option is to not take that trip.

Not when it is business travel.

Quoting cloudboy (Reply 75):
Do away with PD, and the AC and WS get to set the price they want, which will discourage a large number of travelers.

AC still has to compete with WS... and any other American carrier on transborder even if PD didn't exist. Not a "large" number would be discouraged because of destination business, family, friends, etc., etc. The only person that wouldn't travel by air is if they couldn't afford the the fare differential.

Quoting AirbusCanada (Reply 77):
in short haul routes where people has plenty of alternatives like Rental Car, Bus and the train.

Exactly... the net economic impact is marginal.

INFINITI329 · Tue Nov 10, 2015 9:54 am

Quoting planemaker (Reply 79):
C still has to compete with WS... and any other American carrier on transborder even if PD didn't exist. Not a "large" number would be discouraged because of destination business, family, friends, etc., etc. The only person that wouldn't travel by air is if they couldn't afford the the fare differential.

That's were BUF comes into play to compete for both pax originating and terminating in toronto.

AirbusCanada · Tue Nov 10, 2015 2:56 pm

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 80):
xactly... the net economic impact is marginal.

No its not, you will be contributing a lot in the local economy let's say driving your own car vs. taking a flight/BUS/Train.
If two million people takes a short haul flight as oppose to driving their own car or not taking the trip at all, the net economic impact on the local economy is not marginal at all..

planemaker · Tue Nov 10, 2015 3:31 pm

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 80):
That's were BUF comes into play to compete for both pax originating and terminating in toronto.

Yes, in addition to BUF that is also happening with BLI and to lesser extent PBG as well.

Quoting AirbusCanada (Reply 81):
No its not, you will be contributing a lot in the local economy let's say driving your own car vs. taking a flight/BUS/Train.

It is because it is a marginal number of people that decide on the edges of the modal split with regards to PD at YTZ.

AirbusCanada · Tue Nov 10, 2015 4:10 pm

Quoting planemaker (Reply 82):
It is because it is a marginal number of people that decide on the edges of the modal split with regards to PD at WE are not even counting tourism revenue (Hotels/Restaurants/Concert Tickets) generated by all the visitors visiting Toronto thanks to cheap tickets (thanks to increased competition) and convenience downtown location.

[Edited 2015-11-10 08:30:42]
Top

Amiga500

Posts: 2468

Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: Trudeau Gov't Confirms No Jets @ YTZ

#85

Tue Nov 10, 2015 4:38 pm

Quoting planemaker (Reply 79):
Not when it is business travel.

Yes, because businesses don't make decisions based on access to their client/supplier/partner.

:rolleyes:

Try to telecon a few meetings 'cos it doesn't make sense to fly 5 people to a supplier one day, realise it's too much hassle trying to manage them the next, then pick a different partner/supplier on down the line.

Why do you think London City is abnormally important given the size of it compared to Heathrow?

Top

YXXMIKE

Posts: 171

Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:44 am

RE: Trudeau Gov't Confirms No Jets @ YTZ

#86

Tue Nov 10, 2015 5:06 pm

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 84):
Why do you think London City is abnormally important given the size of it compared to Heathrow?

It's difficult to compare YTZ to a London or New York when thinking like Planemaker because those are major financial centres for their respective countries and a lot of the folk flying in and out of an LGA or LCY are only doing day trips or overnight trips for work. Those same people aren't worried about the ease of transit between their airplane and their office/boardroom/meeting and these same people who use those types of city airports don't care about shorter security lines or frequency of flights between major centres...it just doesn't matter to them.

YTZ expansion will be an incredibly long process given the recent change in government which will end up being dragged through the courts by PD because the fundamental questions aren't really being looked at rationally by the no side:

Does extending the runway cause safety issues or increase the chances of a catastrophic incident?
Are modern jets louder than turboprops?
Will there actually be a negative impact on property prices along the waterfront?

Is the tripartite agreement still a relevant agreement given the state of modern aviation and the advances of jet engine technology and safety? Does the spirit of the agreement still hold water is probably the better question and that's something a judge may have to determine because at present the No side (including the politicians backing it) are just looking at it from an entirely one sided and ultimately selfish way (votes/re-election/view from condo/fear of change etc).

Top

ytz

Posts: 3529

Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:31 am

RE: Trudeau Gov't Confirms No Jets @ YTZ

#87

Tue Nov 10, 2015 7:39 pm

Quoting YXXMIKE (Reply 85):
YTZ expansion will be an incredibly long process given the recent change in government which will end up being dragged through the courts by PD because the fundamental questions aren't really being looked at rationally by the no side

Whilst I fully support the extension, Porter or not, I fail to see how the tripartite agreement can be challenged in court. It's an agreement between three parties who own and manage the airport. What standing does a private company, not party to the agreement, have, to challenge that agreement?

Such a suit wouldn't survive past the first filing.

Top

Viscount724

Posts: 19316

Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Trudeau Gov't Confirms No Jets @ YTZ

#88

Wed Nov 11, 2015 3:08 am

Quoting YXXMIKE (Reply 85):
Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 84):
Why do you think London City is abnormally important given the size of it compared to Heathrow?

It's difficult to compare YTZ to a London or New York when thinking like Planemaker because those are major financial centres for their respective countries and a lot of the folk flying in and out of an LGA or LCY are only doing day trips or overnight trips for work.

And Toronto is by far Canada's major financial centre.

Top

planemaker

Posts: 5411

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Trudeau Gov't Confirms No Jets @ YTZ

#89

Wed Nov 11, 2015 2:02 pm

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 87):
And Toronto is by far Canada's major financial centre.

It is indeed but people should put it in perspective as it is dwarfed in every measure by the two other cities people reference.

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 84):
Try to telecon a few meetings 'cos it doesn't make sense to fly 5 people to a supplier one day, realise it's too much hassle trying to manage them the next, then pick a different partner/supplier on down the line.

Your response to my comment: "Not when it is business travel", doesn't apply.

Quoting AirbusCanada (Reply 83):
WE are not even counting tourism revenue (Hotels/Restaurants/Concert Tickets) generated by all the visitors visiting Toronto thanks to cheap tickets (thanks to increased competition) and convenience downtown location.

You may not be counting but I have been all along... and PD's "net" economic impact is indeed "marginal".

First things first. The Economic Impact Study that PD bandies about to burnish their cred has Billy Bishop contributing less than two tenths of 1% to the City of Toronto's economy and employment numbers - and that is at face value. And economists disputed even those "marginal" numbers for several reasons, including the use of unsupported multipliers and estimates. The result is that on a per pax basis, the study has Billy Bishop contributing three times as much as London City Airport, for example.

So, using Ports Toronto's numbers, PD's economic impact is a subset of those already "marginal" numbers... and that is even before looking at PD's "net" economic impact numbers which are obviously even much lower.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 86):
I fail to see how the tripartite agreement can be challenged in court. It's an agreement between three parties who own and manage the airport. What standing does a private company, not party to the agreement, have, to challenge that agreement?

It would appear some people on here think that all that has to be done is extend the runways and they're done... and that a private company can force that through the courts. In any case, the environmental assessment on its own might sink the whole bid for jets.

Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein

Top

INFINITI329

Posts: 2476

Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

RE: Trudeau Gov't Confirms No Jets @ YTZ

#90

Wed Nov 11, 2015 2:40 pm

Quoting AirbusCanada (Reply 81):

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 80):
xactly... the net economic impact is marginal.

You quoted me wrong. Was not my statement

[quote=YXXMIKE,reply=85]t's difficult to compare YTZ to a London or New York when thinking like Planemaker because those are major financial centres for their respective countries

As a Canadian, I'm shocked that you believe Toronto isn't the financial center of Canada.

Top

planemaker

Posts: 5411

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Trudeau Gov't Confirms No Jets @ YTZ

#91

Wed Nov 11, 2015 3:12 pm

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 89):
As a Canadian, I'm shocked that you believe Toronto isn't the financial center of Canada.

Well, it does say something about not being able to comprehend the importance and dynamics of the Eastern Triangle.

Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein

Top

YXXMIKE

Posts: 171

Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:44 am

RE: Trudeau Gov't Confirms No Jets @ YTZ

#92

Wed Nov 11, 2015 3:15 pm

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 87):
And Toronto is by far Canada's major financial centre.
Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 89):
As a Canadian, I'm shocked that you believe Toronto isn't the financial center of Canada.

Sorry - meant financial services centre, in the same way London is the financial services centre to the UK and Edinburgh is the Financial & Insurance centre for Scotland.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 86):
Such a suit wouldn't survive past the first filing.

Canadian Law is a funny thing and could get drawn out very easily. Wording in that agreement will determine what legs it may have in the courts. Things such as the "spirit of the agreement is no longer valid" - e.g. this was written when noise from aircraft was at XYZ decibels. So in my uninformed/lowly opinion this has a lot more legs than what we are currently reading in the news and hearing from politicians.

Top

Amiga500

Posts: 2468

Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: Trudeau Gov't Confirms No Jets @ YTZ

#93

Wed Nov 11, 2015 3:18 pm

Quoting planemaker (Reply 88):
Your response to my comment: "Not when it is business travel", doesn't apply.

Maybe in your little world.

Meanwhile, in reality, it very much applies.

Make it harder to do business and some people will look elsewhere. A subset of those actually will go elsewhere.

Top

planemaker

Posts: 5411

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Trudeau Gov't Confirms No Jets @ YTZ

#94

Wed Nov 11, 2015 3:31 pm

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 92):
Maybe in your little world.

Your resorting to petty insults, particularly when your point is incorrect, demonstrates the underlying quality of your responses.

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 92):
Meanwhile, in reality, it very much applies.

No it doesn't with the Island Airport... and that is what this discussion is about. And you have shown you know very little about the Island Airport.

Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein

Top

Amiga500

Posts: 2468

Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: Trudeau Gov't Confirms No Jets @ YTZ

#95

Wed Nov 11, 2015 4:20 pm

Quoting planemaker (Reply 93):
No it doesn't with the Island Airport..

Yes it does apply.

Maybe you can't grasp the reasons, but that doesn't mean they aren't there.

Top

planemaker

Posts: 5411

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Trudeau Gov't Confirms No Jets @ YTZ

#96

Wed Nov 11, 2015 7:41 pm

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 95):
Yes it does apply.

Maybe you can't grasp the reasons, but that doesn't mean they aren't there.

If at all true, then it should be very easy for you to at least list some of the reasons you claim why business people would NOT travel to Toronto if PD did not exist.

And more germane to this discussion, how the impact of any business people that would NOT travel to Toronto because PD didn't exist, would be more than marginal to the already marginal PD impact numbers.

Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein

Top

yyz717

Posts: 15771

Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Trudeau Gov't Confirms No Jets @ YTZ

#97

Thu Nov 12, 2015 1:57 am

Quoting YXXMIKE (Reply 91):
Sorry - meant financial services centre, in the same way London is the financial services centre to the UK and Edinburgh is the Financial & Insurance centre for Scotland.

The UK magazine "The Banker" ranked Toronto as the 2nd largest financial centre in North America (after NYC of course) and the 6th largest in the world.

That's nothing to sneeze at.

I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.

Top

longhauler

Posts: 6371

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

RE: Trudeau Gov't Confirms No Jets @ YTZ

#98

Thu Nov 12, 2015 3:34 am

Quoting planemaker (Reply 95):
And more germane to this discussion, how the impact of any business people that would NOT travel to Toronto because PD didn't exist, would be more than marginal to the already marginal PD impact numbers.

I have to agree with planemaker here. I can't imagine any substantial business chosing not to deal in Toronto, simply because the runways at the city airport were not extended ... and refused to fly in a Q400!

Especially considering:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 96):
The UK magazine "The Banker" ranked Toronto as the 2nd largest financial centre in North America (after NYC of course) and the 6th largest in the world.

And, as for whether Porter would generate additional tourist business if they had jet aircraft, that's a tough one to quatify. To think that, one would have to assume people are sitting at home looking for places to fly, and think ... "Gee, I can fly on a jet to downtown Toronto, let's go there". (Because flying into YYZ, taking a train, bus or automobile or even flying in a Q400 would be out of the question).

But I guess this discussion really come's down to the viability of two Toronto/Canada "darlings". Porter Airlines and would they survive without jet aircraft? ... and Bombardier with the CSeries and would they survive without the Porter order?

I am guessing yes to both. If Porter is viable/profitable now, then they will still be here whether they get jet aircraft or not. And the Bombardier CSeries? I don't think the Porter order neither guarantees nor dooms its survival.

Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!

Top

planemaker

Posts: 5411

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Trudeau Gov't Confirms No Jets @ YTZ

#99

Thu Nov 12, 2015 5:30 am

Quoting longhauler (Reply 97):
Porter Airlines and would they survive without jet aircraft?

"Survive without jet aircraft" is an interesting question, and obviously time will tell. Jets would certainly solve some to the headwinds they face. Having the lion's share of slots at the Island Airport has been an obvious advantage, but on the other hand, the slot limits are turning out to be a bit of a competitive straitjacket. PD has to maintain frequency on the eastern triangle which limits the ability to add new destinations from the Island Airport. As well, PD hasn't increased its fleet since it took it 26th aircraft in 2012. And during the past year a growing Encore has ramped up competition in the east on PD routes such as Toronto-Thunder Bay, Toronto-Quebec City, Toronto-Halifax, Ottawa-Halifax, Ottawa-Moncton, Halifax-St.John's and next year Toronto-Boston and Halifax-Boston. Encore's fleet is already just one shy of PD's. The sale of the terminal was presented as a competitive move and not be a terminal operator but others believe it was done in order to buy some head room until they could get some jets as that would allow them to increase capacity with the same number of slots while picking up higher yielding routes beyond the range of the Q400.

Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein

Top

YXXMIKE

Posts: 171

Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:44 am

RE: Trudeau Gov't Confirms No Jets @ YTZ

#100

Thu Nov 12, 2015 8:42 am

Quoting planemaker (Reply 98):
The sale of the terminal was presented as a competitive move and not be a terminal operator but others believe it was done in order to buy some head room until they could get some jets as that would allow them to increase capacity with the same number of slots while picking up higher yielding routes beyond the range of the Q400.

This article is probably worth a read; not far off on what you've said about the sale of terminal in that it gave PD a chance to be debt free and strengthen the balance sheet for the airline. Deluce's comment about being the one company who could really strengthen BBD is a bit far fetched; even for me.

http://business.financialpost.com/ne...pansion-as-it-enters-debt-free-era

Top

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Locked

Print view

1

2

3

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: adamh8297, AECM, arcticcruiser, Argent, ARN, Boeing74741R, CaptCoolHand, Charles79, chicawgo, chunhimlai, Condor777, crownvic, CYYZLOWW, davidjohnson6, edina, FB330, Fiend, Gemuser, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Iemand91, JakTrax, JoKeR, kanye, Kikko19, Kiwirob, kyrone, Legs, Melb94, mikeymike330, MON, NameOmitted, OslPhlWasChi, PhoenixVIP, PM, RalXWB, royroy, rudyioa, RyanairGuru, Scotron12, SeanM1997, sise1989, straat, StTim, sunking737, T4thH, tomgle, tommy1808, UAEflyer, usflyer msp, VV, wezgulf3, wingflex744, XRAYretired and 573 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last: 24 Hours • 48 Hours • 7 Days • 30 Days • 180 Days • 365 Days • All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos

Civil Aviation

Travel, Polls & Preferences

Technical/Operations

Aviation Hobby

Aviation Photography

Photography Feedback

Trip Reports

Military Aviation & Space Flight

Non-Aviation

Site Related

Airliners.net

Aviation Forums

Civil Aviation

Delete all board cookies

The team

Delete all board cookies

The team

Forums

Civil Aviation

Travel, Polls & Preferences

Technical/Operations

Aviation Hobby

Aviation Photography

Photography Feedback

Trip Reports

Military Aviation & Space Flight

Non-Aviation

Site Related

Quick Links

Forum Rules

Forums Home

FAQ

Search

The team

Photos

Search

Photo Albums

Top Photographers

Upload

Photo Index

More

News

Aircraft Data

About

Terms of Use

Copyright

Privacy Policy

Contact us

About us

Airliners.net is the leading community for discovering and sharing high-quality aviation photography. We thank you for your support and hope you'll join the largest aviation community on the web.

Copyright © VerticalScope Inc.