[Filip]

To compare (using the same day), with the 30% promo that Porter is currently running, prices range from $83.30 to $160 (firm) to $$296.80 (freedom), depending on the time chosen. There is also the middle fare category -- flexible, I think. Their earliest flight seems to be 6:55 am.

Too expensive.

On average, I tend to fly 4-6x a year between Ottawa and Toronto. The only way I'll purchase a plane ticket is if the price is around $200. Back in 2007, I flew on Porter for a really low fare, then their fares have been creeping up. Now Porter, even with all their discounts and bells and whistles, is on average about $80 more expensive than Air Canada or WestJet. Everytime Porter announces their 30% sale, so does Air Canada. However, it's still cheaper on AC.

 

[sjc]

http://www.thesunnews.com/2011/03/10/2031214/fliers-to-myrtle-beach-international.html

About 270 passengers flew on Porter Airlines from Toronto last month, the first time the carrier has flown to Myrtle Beach in February.

Porter only started flying to MYR on Feb 17th, so there were 7 flights in February. That would be an average of 38.5 passengers per flight, which means they were more than half full. I expect that they have a limit on passengers anyways, given the distance.

Also, Porter is increasing service to Thunder Bay to 5 times a day:
https://www.flyporter.com/About/News-Release-Details?id=140&culture=en-CA

Here are some links to the new TV ads. I've seen them on CP24 the last few days. Apparently, they will also be on CTV, CBC, Global, A-Channel and BNN.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wCVQM0cFBA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMXChXPsW7o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtwveCFBIcg

 

[TOareaFan]

http://www.thesunnews.com/2011/03/10/2031214/fliers-to-myrtle-beach-international.html



Porter only started flying to MYR on Feb 17th, so there were 7 flights in February. That would be an average of 38.5 passengers per flight, which means they were more than half full. I expect that they have a limit on passengers anyways, given the distance.

Especially considering they are more likely to be vacationers with checked bags and golf clubs as compared to same day business travelers on some other routes.

 

[Chuck]

Air Canada is apparently matching all of Porter's amenities and is providing their own free shuttle. They will no doubt try to undercut Porter, make every possible attempt to drive Porter out of business, then pull the amenities and get us right back to square one - crappy service subsidized by taxpayers.

Competition is fine, but at least throw a new spin on things! Bring in a discount carrier that offers no amenities but cheap fairs. Or bring in a carrier willing to fly to completely different cities. However, allowing AC to operate as a carbon copy of Porter will erode the market and be of benefit to no one.

 

[sjc]

Air Canada is apparently matching all of Porter's amenities and is providing their own free shuttle.

Most of the non-onboard amenities are shared ones (bus, lounge snacks, etc) that will be included in Air Canada's rent.

 

[sjc]

Another benefit of the tunnel (besides allowing you to avoid an up-to-15-minute wait for the ferry, longer if the ferry is full) is that it will smooth out the flow of people through security. Currently, people arrive in 15-minute lumps, causing longer lines at check-in and security.

A proposed $50-million pedestrian tunnel linking Toronto's waterfront to the island airport will save air passengers about four minutes waiting time before their flights, compared with using the ferry.

The newly released report, by international aviation consultants Airbiz.aero, used computer modelling to determine that a passenger using the proposed underwater tunnel would wait just over five minutes for check-in and security screening, on average. Passengers on the free ferry, which runs every 15 minutes, wait just over nine minutes at check-in and security.

"The ferry has the impact of accumulating passengers which then result in excessive wait times by creating artificial 15 minute peaks based on the arrival-departure of the ferry," says a draft copy of the report, dated Feb. 3.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/03/12/toronto-island-tunnel.html

It would also allow you to take your time getting your luggage after your flight, since you don't need to rush to make the next ferry.

EDIT: Porter flew its 100,000th flight this week.

Porter Airlines’ 100,000th flight in its four-and-a-half year history took off today from St. John’s, N.L., bound for Halifax...Of the 100,000 flights, approximately 3,500 have operated in and out of St. John’s and 130,000 passengers have been carried locally.

https://www.flyporter.com/About/News-Release-Details?id=142&culture=en-CA

 

[chriskayTO]

Another benefit of the tunnel (besides allowing you to avoid an up-to-15-minute wait for the ferry, longer if the ferry is full) is that it will smooth out the flow of people through security. Currently, people arrive in 15-minute lumps, causing longer lines at check-in and security.

While I agree that this will eliminate the long queues for the ferry, has there been any study done into what sort of lines will await at the new elevators to get to the tunnel? How many passengers (with luggage) on average will an elevator hold, and how long will the journey be from terminal level to tunnel level?

 

[sjc]

how long will the journey be from terminal level to tunnel level?

The tunnel is going to be quite deep. From the Environmental Assessment:

For the purposes of the EA (to assess reasonable maximum effects), it is assumed that the total length of the pedestrian tunnel would be approximately 130 - 180 m in length with a width and height of approximately 8 - 10 m. The approximate depth of the tunnel access would be 25-30m.

Has there been any study done into what sort of lines will await at the new elevators to get to the tunnel?

The lineups shouldn't be too bad, since if the wait gets too long, people will just take the ferry when it comes.

 

[sjc]

According to: http://www.thestar.com/business/article/955302--high-fuel-costs-force-air-canada-reductions Air Canada is dropping its service to Washington Dulles airport from both Ottawa and Montreal. I wonder if this is an opportunity for Porter to get some IAD slots and start Washington service from YTZ and/or YOW. Without preclearance, Reagan airport isn't an option, but until they get more US destinations, the US doesn't seem too interested in introducing preclearance at YTZ.

EDIT: I raise this because Porter has consistently listed Washington on its "short list" of US destinations, along with Philadelphia.

 

[rbt]

According to: http://www.thestar.com/business/article/955302--high-fuel-costs-force-air-canada-reductions Air Canada is dropping its service to Washington Dulles airport from both Ottawa and Montreal. I wonder if this is an opportunity for Porter to get some IAD slots and start Washington service from YTZ and/or YOW. Without preclearance, Reagan airport isn't an option, but until they get more US destinations, the US doesn't seem too interested in introducing preclearance at YTZ.

Washington flights are a pain in the ass to support. They're very expensive to due the tripling of security.

I've flown Pearson to Dulles a handful of times though not in the last 2 years. After you go through main security with everbody else, you go to the gate and get screened again and sit in a special waiting area separated from all other US bound passengers. Often, while boarding an officer (not US customs, looked more like a standard Police) or two will pull random people aside for patdowns and searches. Wouldn't be surprised in the least if they also required one or more plain clothes air marshals on board every flight too.

So, in addition to everything else you normally have for expenses (customs, main security, etc.) you've got an additional 4 to 6 special people and security equipment (x-ray scanner, etc.) to maintain just for those flights.

If baggage goes through additional steps too then that number increases. If you can't do 10 packed flights a day it probably isn't worth the expense.

 

[sjc]

Do you know that that extra screening happens in other international airports that don't have preclearance? I would assume that since United will still have YOW-IAD flights, that the apparatus for extra screening will continue to be in place in Ottawa.

 

[rbt]

According to: http://www.thestar.com/business/article/955302--high-fuel-costs-force-air-canada-reductions Air Canada is dropping its service to Washington Dulles airport from both Ottawa and Montreal. I wonder if this is an opportunity for Porter to get some IAD slots and start Washington service from YTZ and/or YOW. Without preclearance, Reagan airport isn't an option, but until they get more US destinations, the US doesn't seem too interested in introducing preclearance at YTZ.

Washington flights are a pain in the ass to support. They're very expensive to due the tripling of security so I'm not surprised they aren't profitable. Even with a full flight they wouldn't be very profitable.

Main security screening, again with the x-ray and metal detector when getting to the gate, separate waiting area from the rest of the US passengers, cops in the bridge giving pat-downs*, high probability of plain-clothes air-marshals on the flight itself.

That's what I can see. I don't know what the baggage or flight-crew go through. For example, do the pilots need special security level to fly over/near the Pentagon and Whitehouse?

* I've had two flights to Dulles delayed because the bridge cops weren't there yet. This seems to be very important. I don't recall them looking like customs uniforms but more like Washington Police. It's been 3 years since I've made that trip -- now I fly to New York and take the train.

 

[dowlingm]

I wonder if Porter might look at AC's recently discarded Thunder Bay-Ottawa, since those are two destinations currently served by them, either direct or by way of another of their newer destinations, YSB which is right under a YOW-YQT great circle. That said they've done a lot of expanding lately - I wonder if they'll need to take a breath at some point.

 

[ShonTron]

Washington flights are a pain in the ass to support. They're very expensive to due the tripling of security.

I've flown Pearson to Dulles a handful of times though not in the last 2 years. After you go through main security with everbody else, you go to the gate and get screened again and sit in a special waiting area separated from all other US bound passengers. Often, while boarding an officer (not US customs, looked more like a standard Police) or two will pull random people aside for patdowns and searches. Wouldn't be surprised in the least if they also required one or more plain clothes air marshals on board every flight too.

Are you mixing up National Airport and Dulles? I understand the approach to DCA is what makes them paranoid, becuase there certainly are not additional security precautions for BWI, which is not much farther than Dulles and easier to get to by rail (MARC/Amtrak to terminal shuttle bus). I wouldn't think Dulles is the problem.

 

[ShonTron]

Washington flights are a pain in the ass to support. They're very expensive to due the tripling of security.

I've flown Pearson to Dulles a handful of times though not in the last 2 years. After you go through main security with everbody else, you go to the gate and get screened again and sit in a special waiting area separated from all other US bound passengers. Often, while boarding an officer (not US customs, looked more like a standard Police) or two will pull random people aside for patdowns and searches. Wouldn't be surprised in the least if they also required one or more plain clothes air marshals on board every flight too.

Are you mixing up National Airport and Dulles? I understand the approach to DCA is what makes them paranoid, becuase there certainly are not additional security precautions for BWI, which is not much farther than Dulles and easier to get to by rail (MARC/Amtrak to terminal shuttle bus). I wouldn't think Dulles is the problem.