^wouldn't the airline that bought Porter inherit, with the company they bought, both the CS100 fleet and the inherent advantage that those jets gave them (ie. that competitive advantage seen in being able to land at YTZ with, both, these jets and the Q400 fleet).....so, having that advantage, you think a Porter acquisitor would move to open up the airfield to jets that others also own?

The ^ was aimed at Hipster's comment....ttk77 slipped one in between.
 
TOareaFan said:
^wouldn't the airline that bought Porter inherit, with the company they bought, both the CS100 fleet and the inherent advantage that those jets gave them (ie. that competitive advantage seen in being able to land at YTZ with, both, these jets and the Q400 fleet).....so, having that advantage, you think a Porter acquisitor would move to open up the airfield to jets that others also own?

The ^ was aimed at Hipster's comment....ttk77 slipped one in between.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, but every other airline already owns regional jets that would theoretically have the capability of landing at an expanded YTZ runway. Why wouldn't they also use these? And who's to say that that company wouldn't sell of Porter's aircraft, because they don't wish to maintain a fleet that they don't have any experience with?

To give a hypothetical example, let's say that Jetblue buys out Porter from Deluce. They acquire Porter's 38 aircraft. But they also own 82 Embraer 90s that probably don't meet the sound guidelines. Are they going to just reserve Porter's jets to fly special services to YTZ, or are they going to petition to change the rules so they can fly their existing, far larger, fleet that they have experience with into YTZ?

Jetblue is just an example. This applies to every other airline that could be in a position to buy Porter.
 
ttk77 said:
Do you really think he's not going to try again for city funds?

I'm not against the expansion as long as we stick to the noise restrictions and don't allow for too many more flights, but I have zero faith in Deluce and the TPA.
Click to expand...

I think he/they are smart enough to know that asking for city money is/will skew the public sentiment against them....I think they knew this when they built the tunnel and put the cost 100% on the airport improvement fee and I think they knew this when, as part of the tunnel, they included city sewer and water main infrastructure (which had to be done anyway) as part of the project and did not ask the city for money for that either.......so, in effect, they are putting the cost of this infrastructure onto their traveling customers too.

I think they also knew this when they applied to the feds for infrastructure money to fix the groundside infrastructure (costs that at airports is usually a public cost). Earlier that week there was a public meeting about the new project headed by Loblaws at Bathurst and Lakeshore....the number 1 issue was the horrible intersection(s) and traffic concerns of the area (which are only partly due to the airport).....solving this issue is a concern for the city whether or not the airport is expanded......it must have been very uncomfortable for someone like Adam Vaughan to attend that meeting and express concerns about the traffic and then a few days later express outrage at the TPA for trying to find a way to solve it.
 
Hipster Duck said:
Well, yeah, but every other airline already owns regional jets that would theoretically have the capability of landing at an expanded YTZ runway. Why wouldn't they also use these? And who's to say that that company wouldn't sell of Porter's aircraft, because they don't wish to maintain a fleet that they don't have any experience with?

To give a hypothetical example, let's say that Jetblue buys out Porter from Deluce. They acquire Porter's 38 aircraft. But they also own 82 Embraer 90s that probably don't meet the sound guidelines. Are they going to just reserve Porter's jets to fly special services to YTZ, or are they going to petition to change the rules so they can fly their existing, far larger, fleet that they have experience with into YTZ?

Jetblue is just an example. This applies to every other airline that could be in a position to buy Porter.
Click to expand...

Anyone buying Porter would be doing so because of the advantage it would bring...while we are at it, lets limit the discussion to airlines that actually could buy Porter (ie. Canadian ones).

Irrespective of whether an airplane could physically land at YTZ you would still have the noise restrictions to deal with....so if they buying company wanted to get rid of the CS100s and fly there with other jets they would have to prove that they met those standards/restrictions.

I am not sure how flying to YTZ would be "special services"....if someone was buying an airline with a dominant position at a certain airport (as Porter has with YTZ) then surely they would be wanting to serve that market....so a fleet based there would be no different than, say, an airline having a small fleet of Airbus380s which can only fly to certain airports...they would only have those if they intended to serve the markets they can land at.

We are way into a multi-layered hypothetical but I can't see Porter as a good acqusition for someone if their only goal was to serve Toronto but with a fleet of planes Porter does not own.
 
TOareaFan said:
Irrespective of whether an airplane could physically land at YTZ you would still have the noise restrictions to deal with....so if they buying company wanted to get rid of the CS100s and fly there with other jets they would have to prove that they met those standards/restrictions....if someone was buying an airline with a dominant position at a certain airport (as Porter has with YTZ) then surely they would be wanting to serve that market
Click to expand...

I think you are really overestimating the lucrativeness of the island airport for would-be buyers. I have my doubts that the island airport is such a golden goose that these buyers would radically shift their own business model, fleet and operating culture just to cater to this airport. Any buyer - Canadian or not - will have its own fleet of aircraft far in excess of what Porter has to offer. They are simply not going to voluntarily not use their existing aircraft that can land at YTZ because of a pesky noise rule. They will lobby to change those rules. Anything else would be a terrible deal.

Actually, I think the business case is even weaker. I don't see why a YTZ with a runway expansion is lucrative to anyone other than Porter at the present time. The only reason AC or Westjet would want to buy Porter is to use YTZ to serve short haul business destinations for downtowners - basically what YTZ is already designed to do. Anything more duplicates what AC and Westjet already do at Pearson that suits their operations far more practically. The "dominance" of Porter is the dominance of a tiny player at a tiny airport serving what is likely an already exhausted niche.

The runway expansion kind of reminds me of the macabre joke about suicide (sorry if I offend): it's a long term solution to a short term problem. The short term issue is one man's desire to see his upstart airline grow. The long term solution is to expand a runway that will be with us for the forseeable future. Deluce is certainly not the first airline entrepeneur to grow his little airline, but everybody else did it the easy way: they used existing infrastructure. If they failed (and many did), nobody was left with, literally, a concrete liability. This is why I think that the runway expansion is such an albatross.
 
Seeing as the runway needs to lengthened anyway due to new rules, I don't see the big deal about adding a little more length to run the CS100
 
Hipster Duck said:
I think you are really overestimating the lucrativeness of the island airport for would-be buyers. I have my doubts that the island airport is such a golden goose that these buyers would radically shift their own business model, fleet and operating culture just to cater to this airport. Any buyer - Canadian or not - will have its own fleet of aircraft far in excess of what Porter has to offer. They are simply not going to voluntarily not use their existing aircraft that can land at YTZ because of a pesky noise rule. They will lobby to change those rules. Anything else would be a terrible deal.

Actually, I think the business case is even weaker. I don't see why a YTZ with a runway expansion is lucrative to anyone other than Porter at the present time. The only reason AC or Westjet would want to buy Porter is to use YTZ to serve short haul business destinations for downtowners - basically what YTZ is already designed to do. Anything more duplicates what AC and Westjet already do at Pearson that suits their operations far more practically. The "dominance" of Porter is the dominance of a tiny player at a tiny airport serving what is likely an already exhausted niche.

The runway expansion kind of reminds me of the macabre joke about suicide (sorry if I offend): it's a long term solution to a short term problem. The short term issue is one man's desire to see his upstart airline grow. The long term solution is to expand a runway that will be with us for the forseeable future. Deluce is certainly not the first airline entrepeneur to grow his little airline, but everybody else did it the easy way: they used existing infrastructure. If they failed (and many did), nobody was left with, literally, a concrete liability. This is why I think that the runway expansion is such an albatross.
Click to expand...

Probably best comment so far on the issue.
 
so we should stifle a private business venture because maybe it will fail? And maybe the reason all previous airline startups failed is simply because they were nothing more than a few planes on the Tarmac? Porters big advantage is its airport, and it wants to expand on that. Porters expansion is largely still focused on business travel, it is simply a bit further astray with locations such as SF. They aren't looking to become a discount vacation flyer here, nor are they entering a new market. They will be providing the same service simply with a further range.

The constant year over year passenger growth seems to suggest that Porter's "Niche" is far from exhausted.

This is a long term solution absolutely, but it doesn't mean they aren't considering short term solutions as well. (largely increasing service to existing destinations) with or without jets at YTZ, Porters business is likely to continue to expand at a continuous rate for the coming years. This simply allows further growth once short term options are exhausted a few years from now (pulling maximum passenger loads with the Q400's)

The airport is also far from a downtown only customer base. easy access to Union allows for people all over the GTA to get to the airport. The airport is literally a 1 hour or less GO ride from anywhere, *anywhere* in the GTA.
 
Last edited:
innsertnamehere said:
so we should stifle a private business venture because maybe it will fail?
Click to expand...

I don't think this is comparable to a typical private business venture like opening a restaurant. If my restaurant fails, I just sell my assets (my pots and pans) and the property owner leases the storefront to somebody else. The risks are internalized to me and my investors only. This isn't even comparable to the failure of a typical airline: in that case, my planes are sold (or leased to somebody else), and the next day Pearson decides who will fill my vacated slots.

In this case, if Porter builds the runway and fails, we are stuck with it. The risk has been externalized to the public, if not in monetary terms, then in other ways. The minute Deluce suggested that he wanted to build the runway, this ceased to be a normal "private business venture". Expanding the runway is a subsidy, if not in dollars, then in the allocation of public resources. We are effectively granting exclusive rights to a portion of what is now public waterfront to one user, and limiting - possibily restricting - previous uses (e.g. any commercial sailing through the western gap). It's not any different than mining in a national park.
 
I think I see what you are saying, at least until you get to "allocation of public resources". Even then I am doubtful. Even if Porter went under Air Canada and WestJet would swoop in and fill the market, even without jets, paying for the airport fees. The Q400's could use the longer runway anyway as it would allow for full takeoff weights for them. Air Canada and WestJet see the market for a downtown airport now, and would love to get a hold on that market. The only way this expansion could end up as a financial disaster is if Porter goes under and no major commercial flights go out of YTZ, ending up with no airport fees. Air Canada and WestJet entering after Porter goes under would maintain the collection of those fees however, meaning that the city likely won't be stuck with the costs, even if the repayment schedule is stretched a bit due to lower traffic volumes.

As for the "mining in a national park", I seriously laughed at that. First of all, the closest national park is 30km away. Second, what are we granting in additional space to the airport? The marine exclusion zone isn't expanding and the physical land area of the airport is going to be expanded anyway for safety reasons. (The Port authority was almost ready to begin fill operations when this whole thing got started, they had approvals and everything) essentially all they are asking is to add some pavement on top of the land extension.

commercial sailing through the western gap will not be affected.. Marine exclusion zone is not being expanded.

5hQyhYH.jpg
 
innsertnamehere said:
The constant year over year passenger growth seems to suggest that Porter's "Niche" is far from exhausted.
Click to expand...

Have you seen 2013 numbers?

[/QUOTE] The airport is also far from a downtown only customer base. easy access to Union allows for people all over the GTA to get to the airport. The airport is literally a 1 hour or less GO ride from anywhere, *anywhere* in the GTA.[/QUOTE]

Take your train to union to walk across front to a shuttle to take 15-20 mins to a ferry and wait up to 15 mins. Yes slightly better with pedestrian tunnel next year but very few people will do that and parking at The island sucks. Would be very interested in seeing the number of people who do that, I expect it is very small
 
innsertnamehere said:
Even if Porter went under Air Canada and WestJet would swoop in and fill the market, even without jets, paying for the airport fees. The Q400's could use the longer runway anyway as it would allow for full takeoff weights for them. Air Canada and WestJet see the market for a downtown airport now, and would love to get a hold on that market. The only way this expansion could end up as a financial disaster is if Porter goes under and no major commercial flights go out of YTZ, ending up with no airport fees. Air Canada and WestJet entering after Porter goes under would maintain the collection of those fees however, meaning that the city likely won't be stuck with the costs, even if the repayment schedule is stretched a bit due to lower traffic volumes.
Click to expand...

This seems to be prevalent view, which Hipster Duck was disputing. In the absence of Porter financials it is pure speculation. If Porter is successful then perhaps the expansion makes sense, but if Porter fails, why would AC or WJ transfer service here from Pearson and cannibalize their flights? If Porter can't succeed with all it's good press, good reviews, and dominance of the airport, why would AC and WJ think it is worth their while?
 
The ferry will be gone in a year anyway, and any travel times lost by the shuttle or possibly the streetcar in a few years (which will be much faster than 20 minutes) will be saved by the fact that you only need to show up an hour before instead of an hour and a half or two hours at Pearson.

because Porter is successful in its current form, where it would theoretically struggle is with the expanded service. Air Canada would be happy to come in and offer the service Porter offers today as it obviously has a market.

It also wouldn't cannobolizing their existing flights, the people going trough YTZ today aren't suddenly going to stop flying. They may be able to switch to YYZ, but there is a reason Air Canada has already re-introduced service at YTZ (albeit very limited service due to Porters dominance at the airport), they are trying to get a hold on the YTZ market.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top