jn_12 - I have no problem with it but I bet it makes steam come out of the CommunityAir-NDP axis' ears...
 
Sorry, wasn't meant to sound snarky at you, more so at Maclean's. I don't think anyone would be surprised that the non-ndp politicians in both the province and federally are flying with Porter, so it just seems like Macleans is making a bigger deal out of it (simply by mentioning it) than I would have expected.
 
dowlingm said:
jn_12 - I have no problem with it but I bet it makes steam come out of the CommunityAir-NDP axis' ears...
Click to expand...

Mine too. But I'll deal with it.
 
Overall Porter, Bombardier and The City Centre Airport have been a success

Porter Air
Small Airline with good service,reputation and pricing
Bombardier
Dash-8 fuel efficient,low emmision,quiet modern aircraft
Island Airport
Location,8 min ferry ride,small,green,away from the gridlock
 
Go Porter Go!

I flew Porter last year from Ottawa to Toronto and back. And I have to say I was extremely impressed. The service was exquisite, and could easily compare to what Air Canada provides on domestic business class these days. Free wi-fi, snacks, a meal with with wine, newspapers, etc. That's service. Since then, a number of my colleagues at work have taken Porter and are raving about the convenience and service. Anybody flying to and from Toronto for work usually requests Porter now. That's quite a big deal for a rigid government travel agent (AMEX).

Since my folks live in Scarborough, it was nice to be able to use the subway and get there in an hour from Union with one subway token instead of spending hours by subway from Pearson or more money using an airport shuttle or taxi.

As an aerospace engineer, I am also a big believer in turboprops. They are incredibly fuel efficient and very quiet. Fuel consumption per seat-mile is only slightly higher than rail and definitely beats out any automobile. With regards to noise, having worked on an airfield, and sleeping at airbases, beside runways flying fully loaded jets, I can assure you that noise can be engineered against (better sound proofing in buildings, blast/sound barriers for run-up areas at the airport), and that turboprops are one of the quietest categories of aircraft. And the Q400 is one of the quietest of that lot.

Lastly, as a proud Torontonian, (though I don't live here anymore...(in the military)) I am extremely happy that Deluce has chosen to create jobs by buying locally built aircraft. Porter has single handedly pumped over half a billion dollars into the local economy (in aircraft orders alone). Forget Miller, give this man a key to the city!

For those who would argue against the island airport....

1) Show me why your privileged downtown posterior is more important that suburban communities directly under the flight path of an Air Canada A320s that generates way more noise and emissions. Or why the community of Weston has to be sawed in half just so you can NOT HEAR Porter planes operating out of the islands. I assure you, if a carbon tax is ever implemented, Porter's business case, vs. airlines operating out of Pearson will improve significantly.

2) Tell me why your definition of a world class city does not include a downtown airport. I have been to many world class cities and quite a few have airports right downtown. Guess what I saw in London, England. Q400's landing at London City, and airport which defines noise abatement standards globally. And London is a way more riverfront oriented, environmentally friendly city that Toronto could ever be. You want something to protest against, you should see Reagan National. A few miles from the Pentagon and they are flying in A320s and B737 with approaches that are an arm's length away from hotels in Arlington. Having flown an approach at the city centre airport, I can tell you that the noise abatement restrictions are probably way too strict. They even modify their patterns to accommodate the islanders.

3) Tell me what you have against our local businesses and industry. Is it wrong to have a successful airline startup right in the heart of our city? Is it wrong to support a local aircraft manufacturer that builds some of the best airplanes in the world (you should see the Q400 backlog and their lease rates if you doubt this)? Is it wrong for our city, the financial capital of Canada, to have accessible, fairly priced transportation infrastructure that ensures the competitiveness of the city and its core (the 416)?

I am all for high speed rail and a redeveloped waterfront but Toronto will never accomplish any of these things with NIMBYs running the city. Miller and company basically govern for the south of front street crowd only. There is no city wide vision at all right now. This makes me sad every time I travel and see other cities around the world. Waterfront redevelopment means making room for condos, not for parks, businesses, entertainment venues etc. And sadly the same people who move downtown to take advantage of these things become the NIMBYs who oppose Toronto successes like Porter. I say nuts to that!

Well as a proud Scarberian, I proclaim loudly, my Toronto includes Porter!
 
I've been flying with Porter, too - though four of my last six legs have run late.

That being said, I'm trying to understand why an aerospace engineer would be comparing a Q-400 with a B737 or A320? A turbofan-powered comparison would be Bombardier's own CRJ or other aircraft in a similar class. Also, an Air Canada subsidiary used to operate out of the island airport, but walked away from it.

Show me why your privileged downtown posterior is more important that suburban communities directly under the flight path of an Air Canada A320s that generates way more noise and emissions.
Click to expand...

I live downtown. How does that make me privileged? Nobody gave me my home; I bought it because I wanted to live downtown. Yes, there are people who live downtown who don't like the idea of the Island airport. While I disagree with some of their opinions, I don't think that everything they say is wrong. Some of their concerns are legitimate.

And as for people living under flight paths and how they ought not complain about noisy aircraft, etc; their complaints did in fact bring about noise restrictions and improvements in engine technology in order to reduce noise. Apparently that kept some engineers gainfully employed, too.
 
^ why have they been running late? Have you been going to Newark?

Newark is causing tons of problems this summer. They shut down the airport whenever there's the slightest bit of weather in the area. This means no one lands or takes off. Period. If it's not weather, they have too much congestion. It's normal for at least one flight per day to be delayed because of something at the Newark airport. Of course, passengers tend to think we're making up excuses, and that really its something we did wrong, but in this case we're as frustrated with the process as they are. It sucks, no doubt about it.

If you're flying domestic though, usually the delay is something on our end. Luckily (at least in the mornings when I'm there) we're usually able to minimize the domestic departure delay to 5-10 mins, and we have enough of a buffer in our scheduling as well as having the ability to make up time in the air to ensure that the passenger still arrives on time. If it's longer than that it's usually an issue like maintenance or a baggage problem. Luckily Porter is small enough that things like baggage can get resolved on sight before the plane takes off. Personally, I'd rather a plane take off 5 mins late with all the passenger's bags than a plane leave on time missing one.
 
Hydrogen said:
I've been flying with Porter, too - though four of my last six legs have run late.

That being said, I'm trying to understand why an aerospace engineer would be comparing a Q-400 with a B737 or A320? A turbofan-powered comparison would be Bombardier's own CRJ or other aircraft in a similar class. Also, an Air Canada subsidiary used to operate out of the island airport, but walked away from it.



I live downtown. How does that make me privileged? Nobody gave me my home; I bought it because I wanted to live downtown. Yes, there are people who live downtown who don't like the idea of the Island airport. While I disagree with some of their opinions, I don't think that everything they say is wrong. Some of their concerns are legitimate.

And as for people living under flight paths and how they ought not complain about noisy aircraft, etc; their complaints did in fact bring about noise restrictions and improvements in engine technology in order to reduce noise. Apparently that kept some engineers gainfully employed, too.
Click to expand...

I'll admit that was a bit of rant. But I am always sad to see the attitude in Canada and Toronto in particular to any idea that smells like success. Some of the comments in this forum reveal an almost visceral attitude towards the Island Airport and Porter.

As for the comparison between the Q400 and the single aisle mainliners, I wanted to make the point that its unfair for downtown residents to complain about noise and emissions from a 70 seater turboprop departing and arriving over water, while there are tens of thousands of surburban residents who confront significantly larger, noisier and more polluting aircraft departing directly over their homes.

With regards to people who live downtown being privileged...any census data mapping income will prove my point. The waterfront has a disproportionate amount of middle and high income residents. And I don't begrudge their success...I am in the same league. What I am opposed to, is their use of their social status to drive the political agenda of the city, solely for their benefit to the point of excluding other residents. The island airport is a perfect case in point. For example, opponents will complain about a few children being affected at a community centre and a park near the airport, all while forgetting the thousands of kids living in the environs of Pearson or Buttonville. Or they complain about pollution, when forgetting about the pollution and economic losses of having thousands of people drive to Pearson. All while forgetting that the Island airport was there long before the curtain of condos was drawn across the waterfront, and that Pearson was much more of an imposition on surrounding communities.

Lastly, I did not say that people should not complain about noise. But the complaints should at least be reasonable. I've been at the airport when an islander has called to complain about an aircraft that has missed its noise abatement routing by a few metres. I could swear the guy waited with a map and a cellphone just to bust the aircrew. To me that's bad faith. It's leads to over engineered noise abatement procedures like we have at the island, that simply results in longer flight times (and more pollution). As for noise abatement technology....yeah...that happens by generation, there is nothing you can magically install to reduce noise significantly. Most aircraft noise is directly proportional to the tip speed of its prop or rotors and airframe drag. It's only induction of aircraft like the Q400 with slow turning props and improved aerodynamics that will reduce aircraft noise.
 
It sounds like a bit of a weird stituation, but the terminal at the airport is owned by the parent company of Porter. I couldn't find out how a private company managed to buy the terminal itself, but presumably it was purchased from the Port Authority at some point. The parent company (REGCO) terminated the lease held by Air Canada just before Porter started up.

I won't disagree that the existence of the island airport is very handy, but the whole thing reeks of political interference. Frankly it would make a whole lot more sense if ownership was transferred to the GTAA or the city of Toronto. Hamilton airport is owned by the city directly.
 
jn_12 said:
^ why have they been running late? Have you been going to Newark?
Click to expand...

Ottawa and Montreal, actually. The worst delay resulted in a landing at Pearson because it was too late (!) to land at the Island. That was a weather issue.

Late is a relative term of course. In all cases I made the trip well within the time it would take the train to make the same run. In fact, on my last trip to Ottawa, the leg from Toronto took over six hours. At least that netted a travel voucher. And being on VIA1, they were a little more free with the wine and coffee.
 
kEiThZ said:
With regards to people who live downtown being privileged...any census data mapping income will prove my point. The waterfront has a disproportionate amount of middle and high income residents. And I don't begrudge their success...I am in the same league. What I am opposed to, is their use of their social status to drive the political agenda of the city, solely for their benefit to the point of excluding other residents. The island airport is a perfect case in point. For example, opponents will complain about a few children being affected at a community centre and a park near the airport, all while forgetting the thousands of kids living in the environs of Pearson or Buttonville. Or they complain about pollution, when forgetting about the pollution and economic losses of having thousands of people drive to Pearson. All while forgetting that the Island airport was there long before the curtain of condos was drawn across the waterfront, and that Pearson was much more of an imposition on surrounding communities.
Click to expand...

Again, "privileged" suggests special rights, advantages, or immunity that is available only to a particular person or group of people. If people who oppose the airport are of such a group, then they certainly have not derived any advantage from their status: the airport and Porter are still operating.

I think you mean income, and that is something that people earn. Typically, one could purchase a house in the suburbs for what one pays for a considerably smaller downtown condo. It has nothing to do with privilege, but where one wants or needs to live.

Also, it is faulty to assume that the social status of an individual is what drives their opposition to the airport. It would appear that people with a higher income are the ones who can typically afford to fly on a regular basis - not people with low incomes.

There can be no doubt there are an array of silly arguments that are used to oppose airports. But for many people who oppose this airport, their great concern revolves around an increasing number of flights and the additional noise that this will make around the limited green space that is available to them. While comparatively quiet, Q-400's still make noise - as do the other fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters operating out of the Island airport - and some people may have a lower tolerance to that.
 
Hydrogen said:
Again, "privileged" suggests special rights, advantages, or immunity that is available only to a particular person or group of people. If people who oppose the airport are of such a group, then they certainly have not derived any advantage from their status: the airport and Porter are still operating.

I think you mean income, and that is something that people earn. Typically, one could purchase a house in the suburbs for what one pays for a considerably smaller downtown condo. It has nothing to do with privilege, but where one wants or needs to live.

Also, it is faulty to assume that the social status of an individual is what drives their opposition to the airport. It would appear that people with a higher income are the ones who can typically afford to fly on a regular basis - not people with low incomes.

There can be no doubt there are an array of silly arguments that are used to oppose airports. But for many people who oppose this airport, their great concern revolves around an increasing number of flights and the additional noise that this will make around the limited green space that is available to them. While comparatively quiet, Q-400's still make noise - as do the other fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters operating out of the Island airport - and some people may have a lower tolerance to that.
Click to expand...

Are they the same people that had no tolerance towards The Docks Nightclub operate a legitimate buissness,and had them shut down and loose their liquor licience a couple years ago for a bit of noise from aprox.1km away.
 
Don't know. You tell me.

Legitimate businesses can, on occasion, break the law. Then they get in trouble.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top