[picard102]

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).

Yes, adding a small amount fill and pavement, into water, that isn't accessible by the public and never would be, is the same as mining a national park. Is hyperbole the only argument people can find?

 

[TOareaFan]

I think you are really overestimating the lucrativeness of the island airport for would-be buyers.

You are really confusing me...perhaps I just don't understand what you are saying.

On the one hand you seem to be saying that expanding the YTZ is just preparing Porter for an acquisition......on the other hand you seem to be saying that the YTZ operation would not be attractive to an acquiring airline. The two seem to be mutually exclusive positions.

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

I understand that Porter andthe TPA are being careful to skirt the issue of municipal funding for runway expansion. This is smart for all of the obvious reasons (although the city has been very helpful to the TPA under Ford). But why do people say that the public is not on the hook for the costs of runway expansion? The TPA is certainly on the hook for the cost of the pedestrian tunnel. The TPA has had to go back to the federal cabinet multiple times in the past 10 years to get its letters patent amended to increase its allowable debt, most recently to reflect its exposure under the pedestrian tunnel P3. I don't see why it would be different for the runway expansion.

 

[TOareaFan]

I understand that Porter andthe TPA are being careful to skirt the issue of municipal funding for runway expansion. This is smart for all of the obvious reasons (although the city has been very helpful to the TPA under Ford). But why do people say that the public is not on the hook for the costs of runway expansion? The TPA is certainly on the hook for the cost of the pedestrian tunnel. The TPA has had to go back to the federal cabinet multiple times in the past 10 years to get its letters patent amended to increase its allowable debt, most recently to reflect its exposure under the pedestrian tunnel P3. I don't see why it would be different for the runway expansion.

Sure...if the revenue dried up and there were no airport improvement fees paid by passengers to repay the cost of the improvements then, yes, ultimately the public purse is responsible for it....but (i guess to some of us...can't speak for all) this seems unlikely. Whatever else, Porter has re-established that commercial operations are popular and viable from YTZ....if they ceased to exist, someone would move in.....in fact, both, Air Canada and WestJet are on the public record that they would like to increase/start operations/flights/routes from YTZ...and both have airplanes in their fleets that meet the current rules.

there is a lot (far too much) hyperbole on both sides of this discussion but there is no request for municipal money to extend the runway (or any of the airport improvements) but, yes, that does not mean the public is not taking some financial risk....just a very small one (IMO).

 

[Hipster Duck]

You are really confusing me...perhaps I just don't understand what you are saying.

On the one hand you seem to be saying that expanding the YTZ is just preparing Porter for an acquisition......on the other hand you seem to be saying that the YTZ operation would not be attractive to an acquiring airline. The two seem to be mutually exclusive positions.

If you follow my thread closely you'll see that I say more than that.

I said that there were 2 other possibilities that weren't being entertained than the idea that Porter is building this runway to serve far off destinations. I said that Porter might be doing this to run its existing routes more profitably because of the quicker turnaround times and extra cpacity of a jet. I also suggested that Deluce might be priming Porter for a sale, but that you could only make the sale lucrative to outside buyers if you jettisoned the noise restrictions and allowed the new owners to operate their existing fleet at YTZ. I also thought that Porter could be sold to non-Canadian buyers, who are the only ones who might actually want to use Toronto as a base to set up Canadian services. AC and Westjet would have no real interest in an expanded YTZ beyond the routes that Porter serves at the present moment (i.e. before expanding the runway and acquiring new jets), because this would duplicate their existing services at Pearson, which is the principal hub for both airlines.

Yes, adding a small amount fill and pavement, into water, that isn't accessible by the public and never would be, is the same as mining a national park. Is hyperbole the only argument people can find?

You may think this is hyperbole, and maybe that comment made insertnamehere "seriously laugh" but, technically, there is no difference. The harbour is "land" that technically belongs to everyone, since it is held in public trust. Same as a national park. It is administered by the TPA, the same way that Banff national park is administered by Parks Canada. Building a runway means that an exclusive user - airlines serving YTZ - gets the right to encroach onto this publicly held "land" for their sole benefit. It's the same as a mining operation being set up in a national park.

You may argue that the runway doesn't affect existing users of the lake, the same way that a mining company may argue that the mine is hidden in a faraway part of the park away from recreational uses and established hiking trails, but it's still an encroachment and exclusive use of what was once a publicly held resource. As such, it is a big deal and we can't treat it like a normal private business matter between private interests.

And I would also argue that granting this runway extension amounts to a subsidy, even if the public doesn't ever pay for it. A government decision will allow something that was once outside of valuation (the lake) to be seized for private use for the value-added benefit of this new private user. We don't pay for this through our tax dollars, but we may pay for this in other ways in the future. If the TPA/Porter don't build the runway, the probability of taxpayers assuming ownership and the costs of paying/maintaining this runway is exactly 0. However, if Porter/TPA do build the runway, that probability is now no longer 0. There is now some risk. Given that companies - even successful ones - all die, are bought out or change management - and that concrete infrastructure of this magnitude lasts beyond most people's lifetimes, I would think that risk is considerably more than zero.

 

[TOareaFan]

If you follow my thread closely you'll see that I say more than that.

I said that there were 2 other possibilities that weren't being entertained than the idea that Porter is building this runway to serve far off destinations. I said that Porter might be doing this to run its existing routes more profitably because of the quicker turnaround times and extra cpacity of a jet. I also suggested that Deluce might be priming Porter for a sale,

yes i know you suggested two possibilities....but in that same post you seemed to be leaning to the sale rather than the quicker turnarounds....in your post you stated that the runway would survive longer than Porter itself... then the exchanges between you and I were around, and about, this potential sale.

but that you could only make the sale lucrative to outside buyers if you jettisoned the noise restrictions and allowed the new owners to operate their existing fleet at YTZ.

That is your assumption, sure, but you could make the sale more lucrative by making YTZ able to service destinations with a fleet of new aircraft that happen to be jets and are unique amongst jets in that they can land at YTZ

I also thought that Porter could be sold to non-Canadian buyers, who are the only ones who might actually want to use Toronto as a base to set up Canadian services.

and now you know that Porter could not be licensed as a Canadian carrier if majority owned by foreigners.

AC and Westjet would have no real interest in an expanded YTZ beyond the routes that Porter serves at the present moment (i.e. before expanding the runway and acquiring new jets), because this would duplicate their existing services at Pearson, which is the principal hub for both airlines.

Yet AC wants to expand and WestJet wants to start service at YTZ.

EDIT in other words I am just trying to clarify my understanding of your prep for sale senario

 

[innsertnamehere]

so because its administered by a government agency it is the same thing? the TPA exists for the sole reason of maximizing economic return from the Harbour, Parks Canada exists to protect the parks and the wildlife contained within them. Completely different, the only relation is that both agencies are government operated.

both AC and WestJet have expressed interest in landing Airbus A-319's and Boeing 727's at YTZ for further flung destinations. They would absolutely love to enter the market Porter is entering now, the only reason they hadn't expressed interest before this is that it wasn't worth the political effort to get the expansion underway, but now that Porter is doing that for them they are happy to tag along.

 

[TOareaFan]

both AC and WestJet have expressed interest in landing Airbus A-319's and Boeing 727's at YTZ

I presume you mean 737s (not sure there are any 727s still in service)....but do you have a source for that? I have seen WestJet quoted they would love to have access to YTZ but always in relation to their purchase of Q400s for their Encore fleet. Also, I have only seen AC talk about more access to YTZ in relation to their regional service and on the "fairness" of the slot allocation.....do you (or anyone else) have quotes/links where they talk about landing jets (non-CS100 jets) there.

 

[Hipster Duck]

both AC and WestJet have expressed interest in landing Airbus A-319's and Boeing 727's at YTZ for further flung destinations. They would absolutely love to enter the market Porter is entering now, the only reason they hadn't expressed interest before this is that it wasn't worth the political effort to get the expansion underway, but now that Porter is doing that for them they are happy to tag along.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but 737s (727s have been out of production for 30 years) and A319s are existing aircraft that don't meet the noise regulations that runway supporters steadfastly claim won't be touched. This kind of information would sort of confirm the worst fears of "No Jets Toronto", no?

Also, why would Porter fight all the dirty battles for AC and Westjet just to allow them to come in and compete against them? I have a feeling that AC and Westjet feel it's not worth the political effort because it's not worth the financial reward.

I find this line from an Air Canada FAQ on YTZ services to be rather telling:

Q: Why is Montreal the only destination? Why not other destinations, such as Ottawa?

A: Service is currently to/from Montreal because of the greater amount of connection possibilities to
Air Canada’s network. This is an opportunity to further build the Montreal hub.

If anything, it seems to suggest that they are serving YTZ for the benefit of Montreal, not Toronto. I mean, it's standard customer service boilerplate, and should not be interpreted as a decision made in AC's boardrooms. But, still, why would they treat YTZ so dismissively and casually if they really thought it was such a great asset? Wouldn't they say something like: "Stay tuned! We have plans to serve plenty of exciting new destinations out of YTZ in the coming year!" ?

If you're correct, there must be plenty of lucrative destinations for them to run a duplicate service out of YTZ. It's not like they lack YTZ-capable aircraft at the present time; their 61 Dash-8s is more than twice the size of Porter's existing fleet.

There must be something else. Maybe they figure that an airport with no border preclearance, no expandable apron, no expandable terminal, zero parking, a single runway, curfews, and no room for a Maple Leaf lounge is not worth creating duplicate services for when you call the shots at an international airport with 6 runways, expandable space, all your maintenance crew, the ability to code share international and US connections with your Star Alliance partners, that's within driving distance of 10 million Ontarians and that will soon boast a downtown express rail link, anyway.

 

[innsertnamehere]

apologies, yes, 737's. They obviously can't run them, but it proves they are interested in operating at the airport. This means that if one of them were to aquire Porter (along with their CS100's), they would be willing to continue operations of those jets.

They also wouldn't have "stay tuned!" as they can't get the landing permits from the airport. They want more service from the airport but without the proper terminal locations and Porters operations dominating the airport, it is difficult to secure more flight movements, as well as the fact that they have no real terminal to use at the airport.

I'm not expecting Air Canada to move its central operations to YTZ, absolutely not. But they have obviously been shown the light so to speak for the airport's market that attracts customers that would otherwise not use Pearson. A lot of the trips Porter makes are trips that would normally be done by car but have switched to Porter simply because of the smaller scale of YTZ and the ease and comfort. Moving the flights to Pearson would eliminate that market.

 

[TOareaFan]

^they don't have enough slots. The number of slots they have now allow them to serve one destination frequently....so they picked the one destination where there is a regular and undoubted demand for that sort of service.

They could have thousands of acceptable planes but if there are no slots for them to land them then they are not much use. I read their Montreal Hub comment as "we can get you to downtown Toronto's YTZ via our hub in Montreal"...ie they fly to/from Montreal from lots of destinations so if you need/want access to YTZ (on AC) you use those connection possibilities they have in Montreal.

But, again, you are free to your opinion that YTZ is not a valuable asset to an airline (I neither need nor want nor - likely - can convince you otherwise) but it does not jive with the notion that an airline, like Porter, who has the bulk of their network invested in YTZ would be some sort of acquisition target.

That was in response to Hipster not insertname

 

[TOareaFan]

apologies, yes, 737's. They obviously can't run them, but it proves they are interested in operating at the airport. This means that if one of them were to aquire Porter (along with their CS100's), they would be willing to continue operations of those jets.

They also wouldn't have "stay tuned!" as they can't get the landing permits from the airport. They want more service from the airport but without the proper terminal locations and Porters operations dominating the airport, it is difficult to secure more flight movements, as well as the fact that they have no real terminal to use at the airport.

I'm not expecting Air Canada to move its central operations to YTZ, absolutely not. But they have obviously been shown the light so to speak for the airport's market that attracts customers that would otherwise not use Pearson. A lot of the trips Porter makes are trips that would normally be done by car but have switched to Porter simply because of the smaller scale of YTZ and the ease and comfort. Moving the flights to Pearson would eliminate that market.

Thank goodness...I think the 727 was one of the noisiest of passenger jets of its generation. Still would be interested to see where those two airlines expressed interest in serving YTZ with 319s and/or 737s

 

[Voltz]

I presume you mean 737s (not sure there are any 727s still in service)....but do you have a source for that? I have seen WestJet quoted they would love to have access to YTZ but always in relation to their purchase of Q400s for their Encore fleet. Also, I have only seen AC talk about more access to YTZ in relation to their regional service and on the "fairness" of the slot allocation.....do you (or anyone else) have quotes/links where they talk about landing jets (non-CS100 jets) there.

I've heard West Jet say they would be able to land their smaller 737's at the island airport after the runway gets expanded, but I think their intention was to try and discourage Porters expansion by scaring the public with the prospect of even more, larger and louder jets.

 

[Hipster Duck]

But, again, you are free to your opinion that YTZ is not a valuable asset to an airline (I neither need nor want nor - likely - can convince you otherwise) but it does not jive with the notion that an airline, like Porter, who has the bulk of their network invested in YTZ would be some sort of acquisition target.

That was in response to Hipster not insertname

While I thought at first that Porter's sale might be one of Deluce's goals - again, this doesn't mean that I think it was lucrative - you will see I quickly dismissed this idea when I learned that only Canadian airlines would be able to bid. In any case, I don't think acquiring Porter is competitive for anyone if they aren't able to land their (original company's) existing, non-noise compliant aircraft there. My posts since then have been directed to dispelling the idea that Porter and YTZ is a good acquisition for AC or Westjet.

 

[Admiral Beez]

if they aren't able to land their (original company's) existing, non-noise compliant aircraft there.

I always think it's odd how we associate jets with noise,while giving props a reputation for relative silence. If you've ever heard a Piaggo P.180 take off (same props as a Q400, but in pusher format), or for that matter the cottage-bound float planes struggling into the air at full throttle, you'll think that it's not just jets that are noisy.

And forget about the airport. The nosiest thing in the sky over my backyard in Cabbagetown is that damn Ornge helicopter hovering over my house. Air ambulance is an essential service, but other medical services use much quieter aircraft, such as London’s (UK) Air Ambulance.

Here's some interesting info on air complaints from the Island airport from 2009 https://www.torontoport.com/Toronto...teAssets/Noise Management/09-2009-TCCA-NC.pdf