[EnviroTO]

Don't underestimate the importance in competition between airports! This is one of the reason's why it is cheaper to fly out of Buffalo than Toronto! Lower landing fees was one of the reason's why Porter was able to compete on price.

The difference in price is mostly due to the federal ground lease at Pearson. When you divide the ground lease of $31M by the number of inbound passengers and multiply by 70 there is a $400 contribution to the federal government per aircraft visit. Pearson has a $7.06 terminal improvement fee charged to the airline compared to a $10 terminal improvement fee at Toronto Island. Definitely Pearson charges more than double (not triple) the landing fees per weight but that is probably due to that ground lease. I'm not sure how Porter FBO's charges to Sky Regional compare to Pearson as those are hidden. Does the TPA need to pay a ground lease to the Federal Government? I'm pretty sure they aren't forced to have a municipal property assessment to pay the municipal taxes matching the land valuation, so one would think that a similar ground lease should be paid so that the airport is being treated equally.

 

[EnviroTO]

I find it strange to see someone who goes by the name "EnviroTO" to advocate paving over Class I farmland in Pickering.

I'm not an advocate of paving over Pickering needlessly. I do completely believe in maximizing the use of Pearson prior to allowing commercial flights at Pickering. What is needed at Pickering is a general aviation airport and some level of cargo. Pickering would be connected to the closure of Oshawa, Markham, and Buttonville. The combined land of those 3 airports is more than would be paved at Pickering. By making land available for development within the urban boundaries of Oshawa and Markham, especially for the denser development planned at Buttonville, less farmland is likely to be gobbled up in the short term. A smaller land footprint to perform the same function is desirable and there would be less areas impacted by flights. My point is that you determine the problems to be solved and then you determine the best course of action to solve them. The solution to adding commercial flights in the GTA is Pearson until it is maxed out... it increases connections, it utilizes a road system designed for capacity, it minimizes new impacts.

I'm skeptical about Porter's expansion plans especially as it means a substantial expansion of YTZ's footprint (the only Billy Bishop Airport I recognize is in Owen Sound) for the benefit of a solitary businessman. But the idea of building Pickering is even more destructive to the environment.

I wouldn't build Pickering Airport for Porter, I would built it to solve any real capacity issues in Toronto and if Porter didn't fit at Pearson only then would they go there. Commercial flights can be handled at Pearson. I would prefer high-speed rail before Pickering commercial flights. My whole point is there isn't a problem to be solved at Toronto Island that isn't better solved elsewhere. A flight at Toronto Island cannot carry the same capacity, larger aircraft of the same era are more efficient per passenger and Toronto Island can't handle larger aircraft, and larger aircraft have lower staffing costs per passenger. A flight at Toronto Island cannot fly as far as an aircraft at Pearson. So if we rule out capacity as a reason to expand Toronto Island (because it can't solve that problem as efficiently as Pearson), you rule out aircraft range as a reason to expand Toronto Island (because Pearson can do that better), and you rule out minimizing neighbourhood impacts (because Pearson can do that better), you rule out convenience (because Pearson is at the intersection of freeways that move better and will soon have AirRail so for more of Toronto it is more convenient)... you end up realizing this whole exercise is about Porter, a private company with a near monopoly at the island that hasn't had the US success it was hoping for so it is looking for new markets. If the slots were maxed out and the seats filled on Q400s to closer locales it would likely be less profitable to fly a CSeries to the west coast as the aircraft will take a lot longer to do a round trip.

I will restate my question to supporters of Toronto Island expansion... what is your vision of the waterfront and the airport? How big does the airport get, and does the waterfront matter and if the waterfront matters what is the vision for the waterfront? How do we expect traffic on Bathurst to be handled, is connectivity between the Central Waterfront and Marilyn Bell Park important, what will be done on those days where the airport has bad weather for its main runway (usually in the fall)? These are the real questions. The extension of a runway without altering the marine exclusion zone, allowing jets maintaining NEF 25, and Porter using new CSeries means this change isn't going to have an impact other than in passenger growth which means traffic impact. The real question is not about the current request, it is about the vision (or lack thereof).

 

[EnviroTO]

This part confuses me......could Air Canada not also use new Bombardier jets in their 30 slots also?

Yes, but Porter makes money on Air Canada passengers as well.

 

[dowlingm]

Have you taken a limo from downtown to Pearson? $58 pre tip.

http://airlinelimo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Limo_East_2010-1.pdf

UPX/ARL isn't door to door. If you're staying at the Royal York or live at Maple Leaf Square but are the target customer for ARL maybe you'd skip a taxi the rest of the way.

 

[TOareaFan]

UPX/ARL isn't door to door. If you're staying at the Royal York or live at Maple Leaf Square but are the target customer for ARL maybe you'd skip a taxi the rest of the way.

I was responding to a statement that said...."I suspect that it will be approaching the cost of taking an airport limo."

As for convenience, working at King and University, we walk now to the Porter shuttle....we see lots of people walking around the downtown trailing small suitcases now (way more than in the past) presumably the Porter shuttle has something to do with this.....people will walk a reasonable distance to Union station (as many do every day for their commutes) to catch a time and money saving direct link to their airport travel plans.

 

[Peepers]

Definitely Pearson charges more than double (not triple) the landing fees per weight but that is probably due to that ground lease. I'm not sure how Porter FBO's charges to Sky Regional compare to Pearson as those are hidden. .

My calculations were based on the current published landing rates from YYZ and YTZ and I believe them to be accurate (perhaps someone with knowledge of the industry can confirm or correct me). $1,700 to land at YYZ vs. $500 to land at YTZ is a substantial difference. $1,200 per aircraft pays for a lot of free snacks in the departure lounge!

As noted a few years ago Pearson claimed the spot as the most expensive airport in the world ($13,000 to land a 747 at Pearson vs $7,300 to land a 747 at Tokyo Narita).

Take away Island Airport and the closet low-cost airport is Hamilton.

 

[Peepers]

This part confuses me......could Air Canada not also use new Bombardier jets in their 30 slots also?

Yes they could and if the CSeries is granted an exemption almost certainly you would see Air Canada operate the CSeries from the Island. Air Canada is looking to replace it's Embraer fleet (the largest single a/c type in it's fleet) and if the CSeries is granted an exemption that could be a decisive factor in Air Canada deciding to replace it's Embraer fleet with CSeries Jets which would be a big boost for Bombardier and with it the Canadian aerospace industry. We saw this knock-on order effect with the Q-400's. In order to compete with Porter Air Canada is operating a fleet of brand-new Q-400's from YTZ. Likewise I am sure that Westjet had Porter in it's sights when it selected the Q-400 for its new regional start-up.

Think of the value of the Q-400's orders from these three airlines. It is in the $Billions of dollars and it is for an aircraft that is made right here in Toronto at Downsview. $Billions in orders that likely never would have materialized had David Miller and Olivia Chow been successful in killing Billy Bishop airport! Funny how it's the NDP "pro labour" party politicians who are sometimes the biggest job killers!

 

[Automation Gallery]

What an exciting time for Canadian Aerospace

1st flight of new CSeries jet in June, Bombardier confirms
Bombardier's new CSeries commercial jet is on target to make its first flight in June, the transportation giant confirmed Thursday.

"The CSeries tests are progressing well with [the] first flight next month," chief executive Pierre Beaudoin said in a statement that accompanied the Montreal-based company's quarterly earnings release

The confirmation reassured analysts and investors as Bombardier had to postpone the first flight of the CSeries for six months last November because of supplier issues.

"We view management's confidence in its target at such a late stage in the safety-of-flight testing as a good sign," said National Bank Financial analyst Cameron Doerksen in a report.

Bombardier said it had commitments for 388 CSeries aircraft as of the end of March. Of those, 145 were firm orders from nine customers in eight countries. First deliveries are expected in 2014


Porter 1st Canadian customer
In April, Porter Airlines signed a conditional agreement for up to 30 CS100 aircraft, worth $2.08 billion, making the Toronto-based airline the lead Canadian launch customer.

Porter Airlines has announced plans to use the jets to fly new and longer routes from Toronto's downtown Billy Bishop airport. Currently, jet flights are not allowed from that airport because of noise concerns. The airport is located just offshore from a densely populated residential area. But Porter (and Bombardier) hope to get the no-jet policy reversed, saying the CSeries jets are much quieter than current jet models.

Bombardier said revenues jumped 25 per cent in the first quarter to $4.3 billion on a higher than expected delivery of 53 aircraft. Adjusted profit rose four per cent to $156 million US. The company's transportation division, which builds trains, saw its margins rise significantly from the same quarter a year earlier.

Bombardier shares jumped 24 cents to close at $4.49 in heavy TSX trading of more than 31 million shares
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2013/05/09/business-bombardier-cseries.html

 

[Peepers]

The request for a report into the Porter proposal passed 29 - 15. The below link is a snap-shot showing how Council voted:

https://twitter.com/GraphicMatt/status/331899666079809536/photo/1

We can gather from this that the Councillors who opposed the request for a report are completely dead set against allowing Jets. They are:

Shelley Carrol
Janet Davis
Glenn DeBaermaker
Sarah Doucette
Paula Fletcher
Mary Fragedakis
Mike Layton
Pam McConnell
Mary-Margaret McMahon
Joe Mihevc
John Parker
Gord Perks
Anthony Perruza
Adam Vaughan
Kristyn Wong-Tam

Of course most of these Councillor have made their opposition known before now but I see some new names added such as Wong-Tam.

Hopefully when this comes to a final vote those Councillors who voted in favor of receiving a report will vote in favor of giving the CSeries an exemption. Regardless of what happens I hope that this is made an issue in the next election. We know that overwhelmingly residents of Toronto support the current Porter operations (by over 70%) and a majority are in favor of the introduction of the CSeries. The constituents represented by the above list of Luddites need to be reminded in the next election that these were the people who tried to stop progress. These are the Councillors that tried to rob Torontonians of choice and convenience. These are the Councillors that tried to kill the 1000's of new jobs this proposal will bring. Hopefully they will all be kicked out of office in the next election!

 

[diminutive]

The real question is not about the current request, it is about the vision (or lack thereof).

The vision is, basically, status quo. While I appreciate that the TPA/Porter is in fact requesting specific changes, these hardly seem to fundementally alter the plan for YTZ which is to act as a secondary regional airport.

Changing the regulations surrounding jets so far seems more like an update to a technologically outdated aspect of the original agreement. Notwithstanding the fact that it involves changing the legal climate, most people wouldn't see allowing jets which meet given noise and emissions profiles as a huge change to the status quo. Just like most people didn't see the tunnel as a huge deal; you already have a ferry going back and forth constantly, is a tunnel really some kind of red line?

And this status quo of incremental improvements to YTZ isn't some kind of slipery slope, either. YTZ won't become Kai Tak. I'm not sure about the specific geometries of YTZ, but basic site constraints presumably limit aircraft type and movements. It's never going to become a second Pearson.

Now, if in 30 years commercial aviation technology is radically different allows us to do things at YTZ we can't now, we can have a discussion then about if/how to accomodate it.

At least to me, things like small runway extensions or reframing regulatory constraints in light of new technology fall within the 'status quo.' In the same way, upgrades at Pearson like a new terminal pier or runway expansions fall within the status quo of it as an internataional airport.

Conversely, I think the anti-Porter/YTZ/jets/wtv crowd hasn't really articulated a vision of what the airport lands ought to look like. Like, it's a huge land parcel right downtown! There could be soo many alternatives to an airport, yet I've never heard of any specific alternative to the airport.

 

[Cinnamon]

Hopefully they will all be kicked out of office in the next election!

Why, because they didn't drop their trousers and bend over to a private company quick enough?

We know that overwhelmingly residents of Toronto support the current Porter operations (by over 70%) and a majority are in favor of the introduction of the CSeries.

In 2003 it was exactly opposite. TPA and its unelected public officials completely ignored the choice of the elected representatives and Torontonians. What happened?

These are the Councillors that tried to rob Torontonians of choice and convenience.

Taxpayers are spending $500m to Union Station - Pearson Airport Express and we better use it. Sorry for the inconvenience.

These are the Councillors that tried to kill the 1000's of new jobs this proposal will bring.

Nobody is trying to kill Porter or their expansion request. They can do that at Pearson airport like everybody else.

 

[Cinnamon]

Don't underestimate the importance in competition between airports! This is one of the reason's why it is cheaper to fly out of Buffalo than Toronto! Lower landing fees was one of the reason's why Porter was able to compete on price. Based on current landing fees I would estimate that the cost to land a CSeries CS100 at Pearson to be about $1,700 vs. $500 to land at Billy Bishop.

The difference in price is mostly due to the federal ground lease at Pearson. When you divide the ground lease of $31M by the number of inbound passengers and multiply by 70 there is a $400 contribution to the federal government per aircraft visit. Pearson has a $7.06 terminal improvement fee charged to the airline compared to a $10 terminal improvement fee at Toronto Island. Definitely Pearson charges more than double (not triple) the landing fees per weight but that is probably due to that ground lease. I'm not sure how Porter FBO's charges to Sky Regional compare to Pearson as those are hidden. Does the TPA need to pay a ground lease to the Federal Government? I'm pretty sure they aren't forced to have a municipal property assessment to pay the municipal taxes matching the land valuation, so one would think that a similar ground lease should be paid so that the airport is being treated equally.

According to 2011 Annual Report Pearson Airport paid $130m for ground lease and paid $27m for payments-in-lieu of real property taxes.

As per tripartite agreement ground lease of Billy Bishop airport is $1 and TPA refuses to pay payments-in-lieu of real property taxes. Their current debt is $31m covering period between 1999-2012.

 

[JayBeeGooner]

The request for a report into the Porter proposal passed 29 - 15. The below link is a snap-shot showing how Council voted:

https://twitter.com/GraphicMatt/status/331899666079809536/photo/1

We can gather from this that the Councillors who opposed the request for a report are completely dead set against allowing Jets. They are:

Shelley Carrol
Janet Davis
Glenn DeBaermaker
Sarah Doucette
Paula Fletcher
Mary Fragedakis
Mike Layton
Pam McConnell
Mary-Margaret McMahon
Joe Mihevc
John Parker
Gord Perks
Anthony Perruza
Adam Vaughan
Kristyn Wong-Tam

Of course most of these Councillor have made their opposition known before now but I see some new names added such as Wong-Tam.

Hopefully when this comes to a final vote those Councillors who voted in favor of receiving a report will vote in favor of giving the CSeries an exemption. Regardless of what happens I hope that this is made an issue in the next election. We know that overwhelmingly residents of Toronto support the current Porter operations (by over 70%) and a majority are in favor of the introduction of the CSeries. The constituents represented by the above list of Luddites need to be reminded in the next election that these were the people who tried to stop progress. These are the Councillors that tried to rob Torontonians of choice and convenience. These are the Councillors that tried to kill the 1000's of new jobs this proposal will bring. Hopefully they will all be kicked out of office in the next election!

I like Porter, but I am not going to vote against my councillor because he's against the expansion of Porter. It's decisions like this that can be beneficial to a politician because they're taking a stance, and not bending over to the wishes of one business.

It's exactly why I do not like Rob and Doug Ford because they blindly agree to the wishes of a business without thinking of the costs/benefits, re: Casino.

And please stop acting like Porter is essential to Toronto's economy. It's not.

 

[dowlingm]

The ,000s of jobs argument is definitely open to argument. After all, if Westjet switched their Q400 orders to CS100s, that would mean work not going to Downsview. The engines would be Pratt & Whitney US not Pratt & Whitney Canada. So net loss to Toronto and net loss to Canada. In the scheme of things there are more important issues to judge a councillor on that whether to help Robert Deluce break the promises he made in 2003.

Some of you may find the following article amusing:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/12-year-old-boys-back-johnson-airport-plan-200809221270

 

[Cinnamon]

Some of you may find the following article amusing:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/12-year-old-boys-back-johnson-airport-plan-200809221270

Please don't show this to Rob Ford or TPA.

I'm serious, recently TPA was trying to establish its own private armed forces (so they can easily shoot down striking Porter workers and whining residents probably), sharks seem more innocent next to it.

http://read.thestar.com/#!/article/...s-use-of-private-constables-at-island-airport