AC was already trying to sink Porter, first by matching, then beating its fares. My friend at the Department of Finance in Ottawa was able to come back to Toronto over Victoria Day weekend with $29 fares each way and did not have to book all that early either.
 
I am glad to see Porter go. I just hope this doesn't pave the way to another pernicious lawsuit against the city.
 
As Sean's post from the Globe & Mail indicates, don't count Porter out yet. Markel makes a fair point about noise from planes. I posted in another thread that I was at the Music Garden yesterday and most of the noise came from small aircraft and helicopters. It's the whole concept of an airport at the foot of our waterfront that I'm opposed to. If Porter fails, I hope the airport can be seen as a window of opportunity by the Feds. & Toronto Council to work with the P.A. at closing it down for once & for all. No doubt there are much more pressing issues in this city but I think the longterm benefit of eliminating the island airport and the chance to re-naturalize that piece of land would be great.
 
Port authority listing
John Barber, Globe and Mail Jun 13, 2007 A13

The Toronto Port Authority lost more than $6-million on revenues of just less than $10-million in 2006 - the largest loss in its history - with rising expenses and falling revenues at its island airport blamed for most of the bleeding, according to officials at the authority's annual general meeting yesterday.

Faced with mounting losses, a $14-million bank loan and sagging cash flow, TPA president Lisa Raitt assured stakeholders that the authority has avoided insolvency by mortgaging the last unencumbered building lot in its portfolio.

Port authority chair Michele McCarthy also announced "a new focus on our stewardship of the harbour community."

To emphasize the embattled authority's new direction, Ms. McCarthy posed for a photo with a group of Grade 6 pupils from Market Lane Public School who she said had come to celebrate the authority's "dedicated and vigilant effort" to "protect and enhance the amazing resources of our waterfront."

"Our children are the most important visionaries," she reminded a restless audience in the Upper Canada Room of the Royal York Hotel, some heckling but others (the better sort) sitting quietly, knuckles clenched white in anger.

In order to better leverage the inspiring vision of children to achieve the synergies necessary to disguise the plain truth as revealed in the financial statements, Ms. McCarthy announced an annual public-school essay contest on the subject of "your favourite harbour activities" and "your favourite harbour memories."

"Parents - no helping!" she said.

The turnaround plan also addresses a persistent stumbling block to success, according to Ms. Raitt. "We've been told we don't do a good job of explaining ourselves," she said, going on to introduce the results of an opinion poll.

The federal authority is mandated under the Canada Marine Act to cover its own costs but has never managed to do so in its decade-long history of steadily mounting losses.

The poll revealed that "the vast majority of Torontonians don't know what's going on," according to Roland Merbis of Pollara.

When "prompted" about the authority's dedication to "environmental activities," he added, "impressions generally improve."

Chief financial officer Alan Paul described 2006 as a year of "financial adjustment and transition" that will end when Porter Airlines, which many aviation analysts expect to suspend service soon because of soft demand, takes flight and soars like an eagle.

The result will be "a dramatic improvement in 2007," according to Mr. Paul.

Asked why Porter has not contributed close to the amount dictated by a recent federal bailout - 25 per cent of the airport's annual operating cost - Ms. Raitt declined to "get into the nitty gritty."

Asked why no actual ships visit the authority's little container facility, which is kept going by trucks diverted to the waterfront by subsidies, Ms. Raitt said that ships will arrive.

In the meantime, she added, workers on the authority's payroll hone their skills "stuffing" trucks at the container port.

"That will help when containers come in," Ms. Raitt declared. "These containers will come into the Port of Toronto."

On the wings of angels, presumably - or pigs.

You decide.
 
Post

Link to article

AIRPORT HERE TO STAY, PORT SAYS
Year of rebuilding blamed for loss, Port Authority says

Matthew Coutts
National Post

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Flights will be taking off from the downtown island airport for a long time regardless of the success or failure of Porter Airlines, officials said yesterday.

"If the carrier fails, the reality is we've built the infrastructure. The plan would be to find an alternate carrier," said Lisa Raitt, chief executive officer of the Toronto Port Authority at its annual general meeting held at the Royal York Hotel.

"Right now, we're concentrating on our successful relationship with Porter Airlines," she said.

In 2006, the Toronto City Centre Airport reported a loss of $3.5-million, which contributed to an operating loss of $6.1-million for the Port Authority.

Ms. Raitt said last year was a rebuilding year, after former tenant Air Canada Jazz left the airport in February, and Porter did not start service to Montreal and Ottawa until October.

In 2005, the Port Authority reported an operating loss of $4.7-million.

"For approximately eight months, there were no commercial flights out of the Toronto City Centre Airport," Ms. Raitt said. She added that a much better result is expected this year, after having an active tenant throughout.

She said an increase in expenses of $1.4-million over 2005 due to legal fees associated with Air Canada Jazz and labour cost increases in maintenance, ferry operation and additional firefighters caused the change in operating losses.

The Port Authority collected $140,000 in airport improvement fees through a $15 per head charge placed on Porter passengers between the company's October start and the end of 2006. That number divided by the number of flights during that time period suggests an average ridership of 18 per flight.

While passenger numbers are not made public, an island airport opponent who attended yesterday's meeting calculated ridership at 25%.

"It's just a matter of time for this to fail," said Bill Freeman, chairman of Community Air, a community group against flights out of downtown.

"I have no idea how they're doing their accounts or what manner they're measuring," responded Porter Airlines president and CEO Bob Deluce.

While Mr. Deluce would not comment on passenger numbers, he did say the airline has reported a consistent growth each month. He said the company owns the four planes it flies and has been profitable every month since March.

In the month of May, Porter Airlines flew more people than Air Canada Jazz did in its last 12 months of business on the island, Mr. Deluce said.

"No debt, airplanes are owned outright, traffic numbers are on track, good healthy cash balance. That to me sounds like an airline that's going to be around for the long run."

Opponents of the airport railed against claims the Port Authority was dedicated to enhancing the quality of life for Torontonians.

"Your idea of quality of life is an expanded airport. Our idea of quality of life is the closure of that airport," Mr. Freeman said. "Citizens of Toronto are tired of having this airport shoved down our throats."
 
Who bankrolls the port authority, and why are they permitted to squander millions per year?
 
Some lateral thinking

How about making the Island Airport obsolete? I propose the city leases the Downsview airstrip which could take over as the regional airport. It has a subway at its doorstep and a major highway connection. It could even be shrunk and a very large park could still be created (Not that there isn't enough parkland in this suburbanesque area). As a plus, leaving the runway would be fitting for the aerospace museum.
I don't agree that the Island Airport become solely more parkland that the Mayor wants. I think they should build a walk/bike/streetcar bridge that would make the island truly accessible to us; The existing airport would become mixed use community that would be an entrance to the island park and not just a 4 month seasonal destination (extra parking could be built on the mainland). Sales of the land could be used to make a great park and maybe make some sorely needed public squares throughout the city--or whatever else is being overlooked in the city because of this increasingly annoying obsession with the waterfront.
What do you think?
 
I'm not opposed to change at the Island but not residential. Airport aside, I think the island is a good mix of residential, parkland, beaches, fun & trails. I wouldn't be opposed to new ideas so long as most of it is retained for parkland. No fixed bridge. Part of the Island experience has always been taking the boat there and back.
 
afransen said:
Who bankrolls the port authority, and why are they permitted to squander millions per year?
Click to expand...

1) The Feds
2) Good point but long story
 
dt_toronto_geek said:
1) The Feds
2) Good point but long story
Click to expand...

They seem like they are completely unaccountable to anyone, especially with their several "fuck you's" to the City of Toronto. The Feds seem to lack either the balls or the desire to reign these people in. The people running TPA seem to have delusions as to what their mandate is.
 
I read once that Goderich has a busier port than Toronto.

That wouldn't surprise me, actually.
 
"If the carrier fails, the reality is we've built the infrastructure. The plan would be to find an alternate carrier," said Lisa Raitt, chief executive officer of the Toronto Port Authority at its annual general meeting held at the Royal York Hotel.
Click to expand...

That is the same reality with the ferry terminal. Just because you want an alternative carrier doesn't mean you get one. Also, having built infrastructure doesn't guarantee survival.
 
jaymckay said:
How about making the Island Airport obsolete? I propose the city leases the Downsview airstrip which could take over as the regional airport.
Click to expand...

Getting quick service from Union Station to Pearson will obsolete the Island Airport more than an airport at Downsview would.
 
Anyone who has experienced how convenient taking Porter from the Island Airport is would agree that neither Downsview nor quick service to Pearson would be the same. You can literally show up 15 minutes before your flight leaves... it's ultra-convenient.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top