[EnviroTO]

Choice. You are right that Toronto got on fine without Porter, but you can't argue that Porter has had no impact on the fare prices of the sectors it operates on. Air Canada has started responding to Porter's Ottawa and Montreal fares. Capitalism works.

It is anti-capitalist to subsidize one option and charge the heck out of another. Jazz was prevented the ability to fly into Toronto Island after Porter got in there. There was already competition with Westjet.

Noise and restrictions. Like I said its a trade off. But the island has many restrictions. One of the big ones is that you can't operate turbofan and turbojet aircraft. And the operating hours themselves constitute a restriction. If you know anything about aviation, you'll know that most airports dont 'close', they simply revert to uncontrolled status after hours without any restriction on ops.

I know plenty about aviation. Virtually all (if not all) aircraft Porter could operate that are turbofan or turbojet wouldn't even have enough runway to operate from Toronto Island. The tower closes at night at Toronto Island and the runway lights are turned off. The medivac operator has the ability to turn them on but all other ops are stopped. There are different operating rules at every airport. Many airports never close but have night restrictions as you say, but many are closed at night when they are only the size of Toronto Island.

The island has several other restrictions that also impact flight ops: departure noise abatement procedures, modified traffic patterns, etc. These restriction increase fuel burn and reduce safety margins, but they are in place almost directly to the benefit of island residents.

This is in effect at most city airports which are not the primary airport in the region, London City and Santa-Ana Orange County being among the more extreme examples. Even LaGuardia has had flight paths tuned for noise abatement.

As for noise complaints, having slept less than 800m from departing fast jets, I can assure you that noise can be engineered against. Perhaps those downtown developers need to be chastised for not insulating those condos better.

True. Engineering can reduce the noise inside the condo but it can't reduce the noise on your terrace.

That being said, the noise from turboprops is very limited and your argument about being under the glidepath is bunk. On approach, all you get is airframe noise (caused by airframe drag...about the same as most large semis); the engines are usually at 25% of power or less, quite often as low as 2%.

I never said "glidepath"... I said flight path. Landing is quiet. Engine run-ups, thrust-reversing (not sure what you call it for a prop... feathering??) and taxiing cause the bulk of the noise. Because the runway sticks out into the water and has no sound buffer around it like trees or a sound barrier the noise echos around the harbour at night.

I strongly suspect that the noise from other activity in the area has far more impact than Porter's Q400s. And I see no drop in waterfront property values; apparently, quite a few folks have no problem living beside the airport.

If you don't face the water that is true... noise from the freeway or the streetcar will be louder than most Q400 activity.

Air traffic capacity. You say that we need an airport in the GTA but that we don't need the island airport. You obviously have no understanding of the air picture in this regard. The airspace over southern ontario is one of the most crowded in the world.

I have a complete understanding of this. The reality is that small aircraft create skies which are MORE crowded and Toronto Island can only handle small aircraft because it doesn't have the runway length nor terminal capacity. The creation of Porter has INCREASED the number of flights in Toronto, not reduced airspace congestion. Had Air Canada switched a flight to Newark from an A320 to an A321 they would have added capacity without increasing congestion in the skies. Smaller commercial aircraft, especially regional jets, are the reason many airports are landing slot constrained.

The fact that we have too few airports is a major contributing factor. Other than Pearson, the next major commercial airport is Hamilton. And for non-commercial aviation flying westbound along the lake, other than buttonville, the island is the only other destination in the event of a diversion. Buttonville is too far and too busy. Brampton is further away. Downsview is a semi-private field with no services. And there's no other airports anwhere along the shore line. Flying eastbound, there is no airport along the shore line other than Oshawa. This will remain the case until the Pickering airport is built.

Once you factor out Porter and touch-and-go movements Toronto Island doesn't handle much. Buttonville is too busy and also doesn't have space to expand so a new airport is certainly required. The capacity of Toronto Island is a drop in the bucket to solve any capacity issue that exists in the GTA.

Subsidies. So what if the feds choose to subsidize the island? They subsidize dozens of small air and sea ports in this country. Just as they subsidize our roads. It is part of their mandate to maintain transportation networks. The money for those subsidies comes out of nav can charges, fuel charges, etc that the aviation sector pays. And these charges are some of the highest in the world. Given that most governments in the world subsidize airports, I think its outrageous that Pearson pays rent. This has a direct impact on the economy of this city. And the subsidy argument will quickly diminish as Porter grows. By the end of 2009, not only will the airport be profitable but it will be exapnding as well, making the cry to cut subsidies a moot point.

Until the federal government charges Toronto Island rent in some formula equivalent to Pearson the "capitalist" and "competition" arguments are moot. You can't have real competition unless players or on equal playing fields. That means Pearson and Toronto Island need to be subsidized/charged using the same formula. That means Jazz needs to have access to Toronto Island.

High Speed Rail. I don't disagree with you. Sadly, it'll be a long time before HSR is a reality. However, why should we close the airport down before it happens?

I don't think we should close the airport prior to a HSR link to Pearson, unless it isn't paying for itself.

Emissions. This issue is rarely brought up by the island airport's opponents. Total CO2, NOX, particulate emissions, etc are all lower when flying out of the island....even if Blue 22 was in place.

It entirely depends on how many passengers go from one point to another. New aircraft and larger aircraft are more fuel efficient. A Q400 is almost always (unless running with almost no passengers on board) more fuel efficient than a CRJ because props are more fuel efficient than jet aircraft of the same size. However, if there are 360 people going from Toronto to Montreal every weekday morning sending two A321s rather than five Q400s will be far more fuel efficient regardless of Blue 22.

My conditions for closing down the airport are simple:

1) Build an alternative; the Pickering airport. This could consolidate traffic from other airports such as Buttonville, the Island, Oshawa and Markham (none of which have the 4km buffer you discussed). However, that air ambulance will take a lot longer to get there....oh well.

I agree with this. Most medi-vac operations do not end on Toronto Island with a transfer to ambulance but instead involve a helicopter lift to a downtown hospital. I would think a Downsview operation would suffice.

2) Develop the waterfront and the islands. There is still tons of work to be done. Why so much focus on the airport? Like I said, the airport seems to provide a convenient excuse. Its critics will have much more of a case when everything else is finished and the airport remains the final obstacle holding up major projects. Till then its rather ridiculous to shut down the airport and leave it to become a weed filled asphalt paradise.

The islands are developed as a park. What more needs to be done on the island besides expanding it?

Nobody has argued that the airport is an obstacle to development of the waterfront. Development continues all over the waterfront with the airport there right now. Toronto Island airport is a less than ideal use of the waterfront but it is only an obstacle to expanding park land on the island. The same impediment the island residences create.

 

[kEiThZ]

^EnviroTO

1) Capitalism and subsidies.

Your argument regarding the expulsion of Jazz is rather disinigenious and you know it. Jazz worked routinely to undercut the competition. It was not capitalistic behaviour in so much as it was predatory pricing by a monopolistic corporation. And once it booted out its competition, Jazz reduced services to the point where the airport's business case was shot to shreds. The presence of Porter will ensure that the airport is profitable. And there is nothing preventing Jazz from competing from any of the airports in the region. If you are against subsidies I am sure you can support that concept; that the airport should be given a chance to be profitable.

As to the airport rent issue and its distortion of the airport market in Toronto I would agree with you except that Pearson is the only airport charging high rents in the GTA. Other airports charge less based on reduced traffic demand and lesser services. There is nothing underhanded about that at all. But make no mistake about it, the island is not free to operate from. It's simply cheaper. Also there is the fact that Jazz as it operates in Toronto, does not operate independently of Air Canada mainline. Indeed, AC/Jazz seems to have no problem with paying rent at Pearson, though they complain about it. And Jazz has not made moves to use Hamilton, Buttonville, etc. where rents are lower So it seems Jazz's motivation for wanting back into the island had nothing to do with airport rents at Pearson and more to do with destroying its competition....again. Do you really want this monopolist to be your poster boy?

Getting back to the issue of subsidizing a network, governments and aircraft manufacturers have subsidized airfields in the Atlantic and Pacific to ensure 180 min ETOPS can be conducted which is far more fuel efficient. Similar arguments could be applied to the island, which ensure that at least some air traffic operates along the shore line instead of over the city crowding the airspace, increasing traffic flow, reducing fuel burn, etc. This reason alone would justify the subsidy to the island.

Is banning Jazz uncapitalistic...sure if you take a rather narrow view of competition. I prefer having more than just two domestic airlines servicing Toronto. If it means that the island's financial viability is at stake, because Jazz works to undermine its competition and the very business case of the airport, then authorities made the right business decision to work with a partner who was going to invest in the airport. If you were on the board of the Port Authority wouldn't you have made the same choice? You rail against subsidies, yet you would undercut the very move that would allow YTZ to become financially self-sufficient. And personally given Jazz's efforts to maintain minimal service at the island to ward off competition, I think the board made a sound financial decision and acted in the federal taxpayer's best interest.

2) Flight ops and restrictions. Since you know enough about aviation....

You should know that the island has specific restrictions on turbofans and turbojets derived from its noise restrictions. Runway length although a factor is not the key determinant, since you calculate balanced field length based on payload and flight configuration for each trip. If this was not the case, the island would have tons of biz jet traffic. Why the hell would Bay street bankers park planes in Buttonville, when the island is so close by?

You would also know that the departure procedures published in the CAP and the CFS allow you to depart the Island and join eastbound victors over the 905, tracking offshore towards the Oshawa NDB, thereby avoiding overflight of the 416 and reducing noise impacts for the majority of the city.

And as to your assertion that most airports the size of YTZ 'close' at night. That's simply wrong. Ask any pilot you know. Most revert to uncontrolled status. That means, anyone can keep flying, however, there is no ground or administrative services. Even Pearson drops its airspace class down a notch at night.

You are right about noise abatement and traffic restrictions for city airports. Again, I don't disagree with them. Perhaps that the route we should take. I would love to see the look on an Islander's face when he's sees a LCY type glidepath aiming for his house. But it is quieter and I would support that option.

Anyway, I brought up the restrictions because you stated there were none on the island airport. Now that we have established that there are I trust this topic is dead.

3) GTA Air Traffic Picture.

You are factually right. However, you reach the wrong conclusions. Yes, small aircraft increase traffic. Yes RJs have put pressure on slot demands. However, that is not the fault of individual airlines. I know a place where there is very limited air traffic under 10 000 feet....the Arctic. Would you wanna live there? The opposite...Europe...most crowded airspace in the world....yet you'd agree that's a nice place, right? That's the nature of populated areas, where air traffic like the surface kind invariably pools in densely inhabited areas. This cannot be reversed only controlled and mitigated. You state that traffic could be reduced if Touch and Go's were discounted. The problem with that is operations in controlled airspace and touch and go's are vital to aircrew training. Otherwise, a few hours on Microsoft Flight Sim would be enough to get a job at Air Canada. Would you want to be on a flight where the air crew was flying through Toronto's airspace and landing at Pearson for the very first time?

You argue that air transport system wide efficiency would improve if Air Canada would improve its passenger load from the demise of Porter. That's a fair argument. But let's take it one step further. In the name of fuel efficiency, let's give Air Canada a monopoly on certain sectors like Toronto-Montreal, Toronto-Ottawa, etc. That would improve efficiency since AC could deploy even larger aircraft. Forget the dozen Air Canada A320/E175/E190 flights a day, Porter's five Q400 runs, and Westjet's half dozen B737 trips. Give AC the monopoly and operate 3 777 runs a day, filled to the brim. That's efficiency. Would that be acceptable? That would be the end state of what you are advocating here.

Now the flip side of your efficiency argument. What also saves a a literal ton of gas is not having to taxi miles to the runway, and not having to be number 6 for departure. The argument could be made that over the long run, Porter will draw traffic away from Pearson. Air Canada will have to fly smaller and fewer aircraft (probably finally switching to the Q400), reducing congestion at Pearson and slowly reducing emissions overall. And Porter will be moving passengers up from a 20 year old A320 series aircraft to a relatively new Q400 that is 20-30% more fuel efficient than anything Air Canada or Westjet have in their fleet.

4) Noise

On this point of contention, you have many good arguments. As per Porter's publicly stated intentions, they plan to max out at around 60 flights a day. Over 16 hours a day, that works out to a maximum of under 4 flights an hour. Hardly, a severely distressing situation here. However, I agree that noise does have an impact on the area immediately near the airport. I agree that noise can propagate over water quite well. However, what I would disagree with is the potency of that impact. Do you avoid your terrace because of Porter's flights? Are tourists and residents avoiding the Sound Garden or Harbourfront because of Porter's operations? Are property values declining in the area because of the airport? Is wildlife in the area declining (impacted by noise, etc.) because of the airport? If the answer is No, then obviously the impact on the community is sufficiently low. If the answer is yes, then by all means, we should close the airport. Somehow though, the merely dozen or so protesters that show up occasionally aren't indicative to me of a community wide uproar. And even you yourself have enjoyed Porter's services. So obviously its not that much of a thorn in your side.

And all this doesn't even begin to include the point that far more people are affected by noise in and around Pearson. The NEF-25 contour lines around Pearson include hundreds of thousands of residents: http://www.air-fair.org/noise.html For the island most of the NEF-25/28 over water according to the city itself: http://www.toronto.ca/health/pdf/boh_centre_airport.pdf Indeed, as per the Tripartite Agreement for YTZ, airport operation is constrained to not allowing the NEF-25 contour to touch residential areas. It is this restriction that has prevented business jets from using the City Centre Airports. And owing to these restrictions no waterfront residents are impacted by YTZ the same way the residents of Malton, Rexdale and northern Mississauga are impacted. Also, given the definition of NEF-25/NEF-28 which is basically a sound level of ambient noise, it is highly doubtful that tourist activities will be impacted on the waterfront. Residents around Pearson, Buttonville, Hamilton, Waterloo, Oshawa, etc. could only wish they were so lucky.

5) Medevac from Downsview

Lacks ground services. Not close to the hospital district. Private airfield largely reserved for Bombardier flight and ground testing, diversion for military flights and basing for national emergencies (ie 9/11 type CAPs).

6)

I don't think we should close the airport prior to a HSR link to Pearson, unless it isn't paying for itself.

Two points on this argument. Would you agree to keeping it open if it was paying for itself? Especially since by all accounts (including this thread) Porter is proving quite succesful and will probably sustain YTZ for a while. And if you disagree with subsidizing any airports, then why close just the island airport. The vast majority of airports in this country are subsidized, as are many seaports. Shouldn't we close all of them too?

7)

The islands are developed as a park. What more needs to be done on the island besides expanding it?

Nobody has argued that the airport is an obstacle to development of the waterfront. Development continues all over the waterfront with the airport there right now. Toronto Island airport is a less than ideal use of the waterfront but it is only an obstacle to expanding park land on the island. The same impediment the island residences create.

There are several less than ideal uses of our waterfront in this city. I would call that wall of condos less than ideal, especially when compared to say Vancouver's Stanley Park or Halifax's waterfront. As to the islands, as you yourself have pointed out the islanders are just as much an obstacle to expanding park lands as the airport. I agree. Move them both out at the same time. I don't see why their sweetheart leases should hold more sway than the thousands of traveler's who use Porter daily. As long as they are allowed their leases, Porter and YTZ should stay.

8) Ultimately I see this simply as the South of Front Street crowd bellyaching as usual (NB. I don't mean you personally...). We had a mayor who was largely elected on canceling a bridge to the airport. In Canada's largest city. Crime, poverty, development issues, transit services, traffic, etc in the rest of the city didn't matter. It had to be all about the island and the bridge. That was his platform. The bridge and the broom....though it was more bridge..... And what about the convenience of the million or so GTA residents east of Yonge who can use the island airport more conveniently by accessing it through GO and TTC, compared to Pearson. Nope, we don't matter. Apparently, you are only a valued citizen if you live south of front. I will keep supporting the island because it's in the interest of the vast majority of the 2.5 million residents in this city. You have yet to prove otherwise. The vast majority of this city's residents couldn't care less about increasing the park lands in the Islands by a few acres. We choose to enjoy more than one park in this city. What we do care about is the waterfront....let's get moving on that first. The few thousand or so who live near the airport can learn to live with it or sell to someone who sees an airport in their vicinity as an asset. Incidentally, I hear property values might actually have gone up because of the airport's accessibility.

 

[kEiThZ]

I've seen the plans. The terminal is going to be very big. I can't go into specifics, but I can confirm that there will not be a landside terminal other than what is already in place. I guess the other thing I can say is that it'll be located behind the circa-1939 building and much of the current terminal will be used for office space/training/storage.

I only work weekends now due to school but last Monday they were bringing over some fencing on the ferry. I'll see if there is anything new when I go in this weekend.

Any new info?

 

[EnviroTO]

Jazz worked routinely to undercut the competition. It was not capitalistic behaviour in so much as it was predatory pricing by a monopolistic corporation.

Competition is all about capturing market share (which is what Jazz did). Monopoly is about having 100% market share (which Porter has at Toronto Island). Yes, Air Canada would want its competitors out of Toronto Island, but it did so without eviction. Porter wants no competition at Toronto Island, did so with eviction, and has control of all passenger facilities to ensure it. The "monopolistic corporation" had competition in the form of Westjet and Canadian Airlines in the Toronto-Ottawa and Toronto-Montreal market.

As to the airport rent issue and its distortion of the airport market in Toronto I would agree with you except that Pearson is the only airport charging high rents in the GTA.

The GTAA (Pearson Airport) is being charged a fortune in rent by the federal government. The TPA (Toronto Island) is being subsidized and not charged any rent. Yes, operating an airline or aircraft out of Toronto Island is not free but it is made cheaper by the fact the costs of federal rent do not have to be passed down to operators. Other airports in the area are less adequate at handling Toronto commercial demand because they do not have proper facilities, are too small, or are too far away.

Indeed, AC/Jazz seems to have no problem with paying rent at Pearson, though they complain about it.

They have little choice considering Buttonville on the DVP is harder to get to than Pearson and after driving that far provides facilities ill equipped to handle regular passenger service using Dash 8s. Hamilton is even further.

Getting back to the issue of subsidizing a network, governments and aircraft manufacturers have subsidized airfields in the Atlantic and Pacific to ensure 180 min ETOPS can be conducted which is far more fuel efficient.

In those cases all players had equal access and no alternative airport in the immediate area existed. Knowing how spaced out airports are in the rest of the country I have a little problem believing aircraft couldn't continue flying along the waterfront route.

You should know that the island has specific restrictions on turbofans and turbojets derived from its noise restrictions. Runway length although a factor is not the key determinant, since you calculate balanced field length based on payload and flight configuration for each trip. If this was not the case, the island would have tons of biz jet traffic. Why the hell would Bay street bankers park planes in Buttonville, when the island is so close by?

Business aircraft capable of meaningful use of Toronto Island are much smaller than anything Porter could possibly operate in commercial use.

You would also know that the departure procedures published in the CAP and the CFS allow you to depart the Island and join eastbound victors over the 905, tracking offshore towards the Oshawa NDB, thereby avoiding overflight of the 416 and reducing noise impacts for the majority of the city.

Yes, but noise of small aircraft at altitudes just below the controlled airspace cone of YYZ are almost unnoticeable.

And as to your assertion that most airports the size of YTZ 'close' at night. That's simply wrong. Ask any pilot you know. Most revert to uncontrolled status. That means, anyone can keep flying, however, there is no ground or administrative services. Even Pearson drops its airspace class down a notch at night.

Most airports for small aircraft are uncontrolled during the day and you simply tune in a frequency and give updates to traffic in the area about where you are. I'm not talking about the tower closing... I'm talking about airports that simply do not take night flights. The airports I am referring to are the many small airports lacking runway lighting and NDBs. A pilot can land despite that but I would consider an airport without runway lights closed.

Anyway, I brought up the restrictions because you stated there were none on the island airport. Now that we have established that there are I trust this topic is dead.

I was referring to restrictions that impact Porter. There are little in the way of restrictions that impact Porter in a negative way.

You are factually right. However, you reach the wrong conclusions. Yes, small aircraft increase traffic. Yes RJs have put pressure on slot demands. However, that is not the fault of individual airlines. I know a place where there is very limited air traffic under 10 000 feet....the Arctic.

No, it has little to do with that. Mainline jets have been replaced with smaller aircraft on routes. Air Canada used to run DC9s to London, Sudbury, North Bay, etc and there were a lot less travellers back then. I remember flying on an Eastern Airlines DC-10 from Toronto to Buffalo and on to Atlanta. Airlines have made a choice to operate smaller aircraft which crowd the skiies and the airports so that they can have more direct flights which leave every one to two hours apart. It is the equivalent of the public transit versus private automobile debate. You can choose to wait a little longer or fly through an intermediate point and reduce congestion, reduce pollution, and reduce costs, or you can leave exactly when you want, crowd the sky, increase pollution, and increase costs.

You state that traffic could be reduced if Touch and Go's were discounted. The problem with that is operations in controlled airspace and touch and go's are vital to aircrew training.

No. You missed the point. The debate is about the need for Toronto Island Airport in downtown Toronto. A touch-and-go does not equate to a need for the airport to be located in downtown Toronto because a touch-and-go can occur anywhere, it takes little time to get to other airports which are away from developed areas to do touch-and-go training. My point is that when you subtract the Porter movements and the touch-and-go movements the Toronto Island Airport is providing little capacity increasing benefit to the immediate area.

You argue that air transport system wide efficiency would improve if Air Canada would improve its passenger load from the demise of Porter. That's a fair argument. But let's take it one step further. In the name of fuel efficiency, let's give Air Canada a monopoly on certain sectors like Toronto-Montreal, Toronto-Ottawa, etc. That would improve efficiency since AC could deploy even larger aircraft. Forget the dozen Air Canada A320/E175/E190 flights a day, Porter's five Q400 runs, and Westjet's half dozen B737 trips. Give AC the monopoly and operate 3 777 runs a day, filled to the brim. That's efficiency. Would that be acceptable? That would be the end state of what you are advocating here.

Yes. The skies would be emptier, less polluted, and airports wouldn't be bogged down. I would prefer some competition, maybe three AC 757s, three WestJet 737s, and a Porter A380 but certainly reducing the number of slots available to specific destinations could significantly reduce air space congestion and pollution.

Air Canada will have to fly smaller and fewer aircraft (probably finally switching to the Q400), reducing congestion at Pearson and slowly reducing emissions overall. And Porter will be moving passengers up from a 20 year old A320 series aircraft to a relatively new Q400 that is 20-30% more fuel efficient than anything Air Canada or Westjet have in their fleet.

An A321 that is 20 years old is still significantly more efficient than a new Q400 per seat. An A320 is approximately equal to the Q400 depending on seating config. A Boeing 737-700 and a Q400 both get about 36g/ASK. The Q400 is fuel efficient compared to identically sized jets, but not more fuel efficient than larger aircraft if the passenger load matches the aircraft size. Therefore, any route Porter challenges which has Air Canada with an A320 or greater or Westjet with a 737-700 or greater will certainly increase air space congestion and at best keep pollution about the same but likely cause increases in pollution.

4) Noise

It is not so bad that people are going to avoid the waterfront. It is an annoyance and people complain about noise at the annoyance level. People don't avoid a street because the sidewalks are patched with asphalt and look like crap... but they will complain. We can do better.

And all this doesn't even begin to include the point that far more people are affected by noise in and around Pearson.

But we need Pearson. That capacity cannot be immediately placed at any other airport in the area. If there was an alternative I would be all for it such as creating an airport 5km off-shore like Japan but we need to build it first.

Indeed, as per the Tripartite Agreement for YTZ, airport operation is constrained to not allowing the NEF-25 contour to touch residential areas. It is this restriction that has prevented business jets from using the City Centre Airports.

I'm not aware that the NEF-25 contour is actually preventing business jets. If that was the case some of the prop aircraft currently using the airport which are louder would be banned I would think. Every aircraft would have different noise characteristics and some prop aircraft would be louder than some jets. The biggest reason jets can't use the airport I would think is the ban on jet aircraft. The goal is noise elimination but the rule isn't about noise as much as it is a ban on jets landing at the airport. If noise was the governing rule then certain prop aircraft would be banned and 707s, A310s, and C-17s which have done fly-bys outside the airshow period would be unable to do so.

5) Medevac from Downsview

The number of patients transferred to ground services at Toronto Island is few. Most are loaded onto helicopter to heliports in the downtown. Most patients which have flown a long distance (non-helicopter medivacs) are stable patient transfers.

Two points on this argument. Would you agree to keeping it open if it was paying for itself? Especially since by all accounts (including this thread) Porter is proving quite succesful and will probably sustain YTZ for a while. And if you disagree with subsidizing any airports, then why close just the island airport. The vast majority of airports in this country are subsidized, as are many seaports. Shouldn't we close all of them too?

Where there is profitable nearby competition there is no reason to subsidize. I don't agree with forcing the Toronto Island airport closed. It is already there and if it can survive within its existing footprint then good for it. Most airports in Canada are not funded by the federal government. Back in the mid 90s Transport Canada started getting out of airport funding and management and divided airports into various categories: the primary 26 National Airport System airports were put under the control of airport authorities but whose land remained property of Transport Canada and who must cover all their costs and pay the federal government rent. Toronto Island airport is one of the regional airports who were transferred completely to airport authorities who receive no Transport Canada funding normally but pay no rent either (since the federal government transferred the land), but in this case the airport authority Transport Canada transferred the airport to is another arm of the federal government.

As to the islands, as you yourself have pointed out the islanders are just as much an obstacle to expanding park lands as the airport. I agree. Move them both out at the same time. I don't see why their sweetheart leases should hold more sway than the thousands of traveler's who use Porter daily. As long as they are allowed their leases, Porter and YTZ should stay.

Islanders hold no more sway. That is why the airport is still open. There is no sweeter lease than the deal the Toronto Port Authority got. At least island residents have to pay something.

Ultimately I see this simply as the South of Front Street crowd bellyaching as usual (NB. I don't mean you personally...). We had a mayor who was largely elected on canceling a bridge to the airport. In Canada's largest city.

Well the city has 2.5 million people and the mayor was democratically elected. The mayor was clear he would kill the bridge and got elected. There is no where near the number of votes south of Front Street to put a mayor in office.

 

[kEiThZ]

Competition is all about capturing market share (which is what Jazz did). Monopoly is about having 100% market share (which Porter has at Toronto Island). Yes, Air Canada would want its competitors out of Toronto Island, but it did so without eviction. Porter wants no competition at Toronto Island, did so with eviction, and has control of all passenger facilities to ensure it. The "monopolistic corporation" had competition in the form of Westjet and Canadian Airlines in the Toronto-Ottawa and Toronto-Montreal market.

In case you forgot they were down to just Westjet recently and it wasn't gaining significant local market share on AC.

The GTAA (Pearson Airport) is being charged a fortune in rent by the federal government. The TPA (Toronto Island) is being subsidized and not charged any rent. Yes, operating an airline or aircraft out of Toronto Island is not free but it is made cheaper by the fact the costs of federal rent do not have to be passed down to operators. Other airports in the area are less adequate at handling Toronto commercial demand because they do not have proper facilities, are too small, or are too far away.

They have little choice considering Buttonville on the DVP is harder to get to than Pearson and after driving that far provides facilities ill equipped to handle regular passenger service using Dash 8s. Hamilton is even further.

There is no way to cultivate other airports if everyone is opposed to building one near their community. What do you think residents in Pickering are going to say after watching downtowners whine about an airport a third of the size of what the are going to get? As for traffic, Westjet had no problem using Hamilton. They moved to Toronto to get more passengers, which proves my point about the need to locate closer to your market. Obviously they didnt feel that the jump in rent from Hamilton to Pearson was onerous. As to the rent situation with the island. You have to keep in mind, none of this would have arisen had AC Jazz operated in good faith and kept traffic up. Instead their pattern was to run the competition out of business and then refocus on Pearson. Since they liked Pearson so much, the TPA did them a favour forcing them to relocate.

But we need Pearson. That capacity cannot be immediately placed at any other airport in the area. If there was an alternative I would be all for it such as creating an airport 5km off-shore like Japan but we need to build it first.

No, you need the capacity to handle air traffic in Toronto. That could mean one huge airport or several. I prefer not to make just a handful of relatively worse off communities pay for my convenience. Everyone in the GTA benefits from air travel and that's why air traffic should be distributed evenly throughout the region. That's why I am not opposed to the Pickering airport even though aircraft at that facility would overfly Scarborough routinely. It's the price of living in an urban region.

Business aircraft capable of meaningful use of Toronto Island are much smaller than anything Porter could possibly operate in commercial use.

That does not mean at all that they are quieter. Ever heard a Cessna Citation or full size Learjet depart? And that could fit on the island.

Yes, but noise of small aircraft at altitudes just below the controlled airspace cone of YYZ are almost unnoticeable.

Your opinion. However, I will wager that Transport Canada would disagree. And if this is your argument, does that mean that its okay to keep a subsidized general aviation airport (like one of the other thousands in this country) on the islands if there is no scheduled carrier?

Most airports for small aircraft are uncontrolled during the day and you simply tune in a frequency and give updates to traffic in the area about where you are. I'm not talking about the tower closing... I'm talking about airports that simply do not take night flights. The airports I am referring to are the many small airports lacking runway lighting and NDBs. A pilot can land despite that but I would consider an airport without runway lights closed.

Just because an airport operates on UNICOM does not mean that it's a small airport. Your definitions do not change Transport Canada's definitions. It's an airport....lights on or off. And it does not count as closed when the lights are off. Regardless of lighting most airports the size of YTZ allow ops 24 hours. The only difference after hours is that no services are provided. Flip through a CFS and tell me how many airports ban after hours flying. As a pilot I would love to know. And by the way Toronto City Centre does have lighting and navaids (VOR), so by your definition it's not a small airport. The VOR is still functional after hours and aircrew would still be able to conduct visual and non-precision approaches without lighting if necessary. It is only the specific ban on after hours ops that keeps flights from landing there....a restriction that very few airports have.

I was referring to restrictions that impact Porter. There are little in the way of restrictions that impact Porter in a negative way.

That Porter works within the restrictions is to their credit. You just don't like the fact that they have been able to pull that off. Airlines at Pearson certainly do not have the same concerns.

No, it has little to do with that. Mainline jets have been replaced with smaller aircraft on routes. Air Canada used to run DC9s to London, Sudbury, North Bay, etc and there were a lot less travellers back then. I remember flying on an Eastern Airlines DC-10 from Toronto to Buffalo and on to Atlanta. Airlines have made a choice to operate smaller aircraft which crowd the skiies and the airports so that they can have more direct flights which leave every one to two hours apart. It is the equivalent of the public transit versus private automobile debate. You can choose to wait a little longer or fly through an intermediate point and reduce congestion, reduce pollution, and reduce costs, or you can leave exactly when you want, crowd the sky, increase pollution, and increase costs.

...

Yes. The skies would be emptier, less polluted, and airports wouldn't be bogged down. I would prefer some competition, maybe three AC 757s, three WestJet 737s, and a Porter A380 but certainly reducing the number of slots available to specific destinations could significantly reduce air space congestion and pollution.

Airlines were forced to make that choice by the flying public which prefers frequency (yielding convenience) over fuel efficiency. The argument that it's all the airlines' fault is spurious. You are right about it being similar to the public tranist vs private automobile debate. You would never advocate a ban for cars in Toronto, would you? Well then why would you advocate a limiting of airline choice to increase the fuel efficiency of the air transport system.

Your choice of airplanes in that last line betrays your lack of understanding regarding aviation. A 757 is a fuel hog, even when you run just 3, compared to the A320 series. Also, I doubt Porter could fill an A380. What you are advocating here is the exact opposite of what most airlines do. They increase aircraft size as they grow (to match their pax loads)....which is why Porter might move out some day..... You want Porter to trade in a whole fleet of Q400s and use one A380. You seem to forget they serve more than one destination here....which you kinda need a fleet for.

No. You missed the point. The debate is about the need for Toronto Island Airport in downtown Toronto. A touch-and-go does not equate to a need for the airport to be located in downtown Toronto because a touch-and-go can occur anywhere, it takes little time to get to other airports which are away from developed areas to do touch-and-go training. My point is that when you subtract the Porter movements and the touch-and-go movements the Toronto Island Airport is providing little capacity increasing benefit to the immediate area.

What may be little time to you, is rather expensive for airlines training employees, and students paying their way through flight training. Operating in complex airspace is vital to aircrew training.... Hey, if you want to volunteer to be on the first flight of a guy who never flew through an urban area, be my guest.

An A321 that is 20 years old is still significantly more efficient than a new Q400 per seat. An A320 is approximately equal to the Q400 depending on seating config. A Boeing 737-700 and a Q400 both get about 36g/ASK. The Q400 is fuel efficient compared to identically sized jets, but not more fuel efficient than larger aircraft if the passenger load matches the aircraft size. Therefore, any route Porter challenges which has Air Canada with an A320 or greater or Westjet with a 737-700 or greater will certainly increase air space congestion and at best keep pollution about the same but likely cause increases in pollution.

On this one you are are simply wrong. Dig up the specific fuel consumption numbers and you'll see. The Q400 is much more fuel efficient than an A321, B737 or A320 since it's operating power can be varied more (owing to its constant speed prop), thereby varying its fuel flow to match the load. Not so much for jets. And this case is accentuated by the fact that AC is downsizing (before Porter came along) to the E-series jets. If the Q400 is so noisy and inefficient, why are airlines in Europe which operate with complex noise restrictions and pay carbon taxes inducting it into their fleets, and in many cases replacing an Airbus or Boeing narrowbody? In Europe, Airbus and Boeing aircraft are increasingly used for range not capacity. And with Bombardier planning a 90 seat prop, we will finally have a green option to take on the low end E series.

I'm not aware that the NEF-25 contour is actually preventing business jets. If that was the case some of the prop aircraft currently using the airport which are louder would be banned I would think. Every aircraft would have different noise characteristics and some prop aircraft would be louder than some jets. The biggest reason jets can't use the airport I would think is the ban on jet aircraft. The goal is noise elimination but the rule isn't about noise as much as it is a ban on jets landing at the airport. If noise was the governing rule then certain prop aircraft would be banned and 707s, A310s, and C-17s which have done fly-bys outside the airshow period would be unable to do so.

You maybe right on the ban against jet aircraft. However, you are simply wrong on which you think is louder. E-mail Transport Canada for data, and they'll have the numbers to prove my point. Why do you think they banned jets if they were quieter than a Q400? A departing Q400 is a hell of a lot quieter than a departing biz jet. I speak from first hand experience on this one. The biggest difference however, is the fact that the slower moving Q400 impacts the area for a bit longer after departure. As for the airshow aircraft....they aren't operating out of the island, they are overflying a viewing stand....different category of ops under the air regs.

Aside from all this is the fact that unlike Pearson, the NEF-25 contour is not allowed to touch a single residential area coming off the island. Do you think its fair that 200 000 other GTA residents get no such benefit?

Where there is profitable nearby competition there is no reason to subsidize. I don't agree with forcing the Toronto Island airport closed. It is already there and if it can survive within its existing footprint then good for it. Most airports in Canada are not funded by the federal government. Back in the mid 90s Transport Canada started getting out of airport funding and management and divided airports into various categories: the primary 26 National Airport System airports were put under the control of airport authorities but whose land remained property of Transport Canada and who must cover all their costs and pay the federal government rent. Toronto Island airport is one of the regional airports who were transferred completely to airport authorities who receive no Transport Canada funding normally but pay no rent either (since the federal government transferred the land), but in this case the airport authority Transport Canada transferred the airport to is another arm of the federal government.

The island airport does not fall under the category of a major airport. It's a community airport. That's why its not required to charge rent. Simple as that. There are numerous airports in this country in the same position. Shutting down the island would be dissimilar treatment compared to its peers. In Toronto's case, as I recall, the GTAA did not really want anything to do with the Island, hence the transfer to the TPA. And they are managing the island quite well. What you disagree with is the TPA being subsidized....a practice not uncommon for many port authorities in this country. And again, that would not have occurred if AC had operated in good faith. Regardless, I am confident that in 2009 subsidies won't be needed. Are you then going to move the goal post saying that the island should be paying rent? They'd be the only community airport in Canada doing so.

 

[jn_12]

Any new info?

Nope. Nothing happened this past weekend.

 

[Team Me]

In my opinion, the inception of Porter Airlines ranks right up there with the opening of the Sheppard Subway as one of the defining improvements to the GTA's transportation system in the past two decades.

Wow. I'm sure all of the Porter opponents would love the inclusion of the Sheppard Subway in a support argument, as the Sheppard Subway is one of the biggest debacles in Toronto transportation history – the billion dollar subway to nowhere. So I'm not sure I agree with you there.

That being said, I love flying Porter. And I live quite close (walking distance) and face south towards the airport. I find the sound of screeching streetcars and traffic to be far worse than the sound of the Porter planes. In fact, the small personal aircraft create far more noticeable noise, and they've been flying out of that airport for years.

While environmental concerns may be valid, there is something to be said for an airport that can more easily be accessed via public transit or even walking. And I think people should be far more concerned with the amount of pollution created by the 24-hour traffic on the Gardiner and Lakeshore than the 20 flights leaving the island airport every day.

 

[Sir Novelty Fashion]

In my opinion, the inception of Porter Airlines ranks right up there with the opening of the Sheppard Subway...

Only if Porter's sole offering was five flights a day direct to Ikea.

 

[EnviroTO]

There is no way to cultivate other airports if everyone is opposed to building one near their community. What do you think residents in Pickering are going to say after watching downtowners whine about an airport a third of the size of what the are going to get?

That is precisely why Japan is building airports 5km offshore. You either need a large buffer of empty land, or to be far from land.

As for traffic, Westjet had no problem using Hamilton. They moved to Toronto to get more passengers, which proves my point about the need to locate closer to your market. Obviously they didnt feel that the jump in rent from Hamilton to Pearson was onerous.

No, that is proof that Air Canada can't escape the high costs of rent. To serve Toronto there are only two alternatives... Toronto Island which it was evicted from, and Pearson with high rents.

As to the rent situation with the island. You have to keep in mind, none of this would have arisen had AC Jazz operated in good faith and kept traffic up.

Businesses operate to profit, not for good faith.

No, you need the capacity to handle air traffic in Toronto. That could mean one huge airport or several. I prefer not to make just a handful of relatively worse off communities pay for my convenience. Everyone in the GTA benefits from air travel and that's why air traffic should be distributed evenly throughout the region. That's why I am not opposed to the Pickering airport even though aircraft at that facility would overfly Scarborough routinely. It's the price of living in an urban region.

So you think Toronto Island, Buttonville, Downsview, Markham, Brampton, Oshawa etc airports should be able to extend their runways and compete with Pearson? Perhaps Star Alliance at Pearson, Oneworld at Buttonville, and SkyTeam in Pickering? Personally I would prefer airports to be as consolidated as possible to allow the maximum opportunities for connections, to have economies of scale, and to subject as few people as possible to airport noise and traffic.

That does not mean at all that they are quieter. Ever heard a Cessna Citation or full size Learjet depart? And that could fit on the island.

But I'm talking to the restrictions Porter faces. These restrictions don't affect Porter because those aircraft can't be used by Porter to run a commercial operation.

Your opinion. However, I will wager that Transport Canada would disagree. And if this is your argument, does that mean that its okay to keep a subsidized general aviation airport (like one of the other thousands in this country) on the islands if there is no scheduled carrier?

There are 26 National Airports System airports in the country, 64 regional airports, 30 small airports, 13 remote airports, and 8 arctic airports. There are also many private airfields. Only a very small few such as airports operated by the DND, Toronto Port Authority, the remote airports, and the arctic (indirectly through territorial government) are subsidized by the federal government. The National Airports System airports all pay rent, and the others only receive capital cost assistance on taxiways and runways. The point of this is that the Toronto Port Authority is one of the very few airport operators which get funding from the federal government beyond capital costs, and Pearson is one of 26 forced to pay rent. It is not an even playing field.

Airlines were forced to make that choice by the flying public which prefers frequency (yielding convenience) over fuel efficiency. The argument that it's all the airlines' fault is spurious.

It is a chicken and egg debate. The public couldn't choose frequency without the airlines giving them that option to begin with.

You are right about it being similar to the public tranist vs private automobile debate. You would never advocate a ban for cars in Toronto, would you? Well then why would you advocate a limiting of airline choice to increase the fuel efficiency of the air transport system.

I would advocate tolling, taxes, and other incentives to try and get people to make choices which do consider the environment and reduce congestion.

Your choice of airplanes in that last line betrays your lack of understanding regarding aviation. A 757 is a fuel hog, even when you run just 3, compared to the A320 series. Also, I doubt Porter could fill an A380.

I thought with Porter flying an A380 you would understand that the sentence was tongue in cheek. I guess you missed that.

What may be little time to you, is rather expensive for airlines training employees, and students paying their way through flight training. Operating in complex airspace is vital to aircrew training.... Hey, if you want to volunteer to be on the first flight of a guy who never flew through an urban area, be my guest.

The benefits of flying in congested airspace is one thing, a touch-and-go which is landing practise would see little benefit in congested airspace. Toronto Island being so small isn't near as congested as Buttonville.

On this one you are are simply wrong. Dig up the specific fuel consumption numbers and you'll see. The Q400 is much more fuel efficient than an A321, B737 or A320 since it's operating power can be varied more (owing to its constant speed prop), thereby varying its fuel flow to match the load. Not so much for jets.

I did look it up. The numbers are from Danish ministry of transport for fuel consumption averages by aircraft. Trip lengths and seating configuration can impact the numbers. A 737-700 travelling 685km with 120 passengers gets 36g/ASK (grams per available seat km). A Q400 travelling 500km with 72 passengers gets 36g/ASK. Basically the same if you fill the seats on both. For comparison a Fokker 28 (the old jets Canadian used to fly) which also has 72 passengers gets about 55g/ASK flying 550km (52% more fuel than the Q400). I think on average a Q400 is 30% more efficient than a CRJ700, but the longer the flight the less advantage the Q400 has.

If the Q400 is so noisy and inefficient, why are airlines in Europe which operate with complex noise restrictions and pay carbon taxes inducting it into their fleets, and in many cases replacing an Airbus or Boeing narrowbody? In Europe, Airbus and Boeing aircraft are increasingly used for range not capacity. And with Bombardier planning a 90 seat prop, we will finally have a green option to take on the low end E series.

Replacing a CRJ700 with a Q400 is always more efficient. Replacing a 737-700 with a Q400 is more efficient for a very short trip length or if the 737-700 is not filling the seats. An A380 is the most efficient aircraft per seat, but if it were to carry 70 people 500km it would probably be able the most inefficient.

You maybe right on the ban against jet aircraft. However, you are simply wrong on which you think is louder.

I didn't say which one was louder.

As for the airshow aircraft....they aren't operating out of the island, they are overflying a viewing stand....different category of ops under the air regs.

I was mentioning fly-bys outside the airshow time period.

Aside from all this is the fact that unlike Pearson, the NEF-25 contour is not allowed to touch a single residential area coming off the island. Do you think its fair that 200 000 other GTA residents get no such benefit?

No. We should grant that benefit to the other GTA residents.

Are you then going to move the goal post saying that the island should be paying rent? They'd be the only community airport in Canada doing so.

Well looking at the 26 airports which pay rent Charlottetown is probably the smallest so I guess once Toronto Island has passenger and/or movements similar to Charlottetown it should pay rent. However the fact that the airport is making money would allow me to agree that it should remain open until high-speed rail is in place and the land is required.

 

[kEiThZ]

That is precisely why Japan is building airports 5km offshore. You either need a large buffer of empty land, or to be far from land.

If we had the capital for that then we wouldn’t be having this debate….

Businesses operate to profit, not for good faith.

Fair enough. Then I don’t see why the TPA can’t under the same premise choose to do business exclusively with a customer who will help it turn a profit. Had Jazz been a better customer they would have still been flying from YTZ. Porter carried more passengers in May 2007 than Jazz carried in all of 2006 with only a few aircraft. That speaks volumes about Jazz's commitment to YTZ.

So you think Toronto Island, Buttonville, Downsview, Markham, Brampton, Oshawa etc airports should be able to extend their runways and compete with Pearson? Perhaps Star Alliance at Pearson, Oneworld at Buttonville, and SkyTeam in Pickering? Personally I would prefer airports to be as consolidated as possible to allow the maximum opportunities for connections, to have economies of scale, and to subject as few people as possible to airport noise and traffic.

The more populated the GTA becomes, the more we will need more than one airport. Even Heathrow is insufficient for London, ditto CDG for Paris, JFK for New York. Most major cities have several major airports. Air traffic is a part of life in major urban centres. BTW London is moving exactly to the model you suggest...one airport for each of the alliances.

Also, here we are talking about not just scheduled carriers but all air traffic. GA needs to be accommodated in and around the GTA as well. The island serves this function quite well. As per regulations, light aircraft have to be within gliding distance of the shore and good airmanship requires you to stay close to airports. The island facilitates an air traffic corridor along the shore by its very presence. This was my earlier point regarding funding airports for network building. If you look on the VTA chart, the island is very very strategically located.

But I'm talking to the restrictions Porter faces. These restrictions don't affect Porter because those aircraft can't be used by Porter to run a commercial operation.

Business jets could certainly be used to start a charter at the island if the restriction were lifted. So you would be okay with allowing business jets as long as they were not operating under an airline? That’s worse for emissions, noise, etc. Not to mention, as an airline Porter serves more of the public than a few biz jets….and does so in a very environmentally friendly fashion.

Again, you seem to be upset by the fact that Porter has worked within the restrictions. It's aircraft meet the NEF-25 restriction for the island. It follows the noise abatement procedures and operates within the stated operating hours. What more could you ask for? This are the same requirements for any company choosing to operate from YTZ. It's predecessors all followed the same rules. Where was the heavy backlash against Jazz? Porter is not receiving special treatment on the restrictions. Porter's critics are just upset because the restrictions haven't sunk the airline as they hoped. So now they want the goal posts moved. And they are upset that its committment to the island is not half hearted like Jazz. Then the subsidy argument would have come into play. Now the subsidy argument will be sunk in 2009. And the environmental argument is bunk because its impact is well within all guidelines established for ops at the airport.

There are 26 National Airports System airports in the country, 64 regional airports, 30 small airports, 13 remote airports, and 8 arctic airports. There are also many private airfields. Only a very small few such as airports operated by the DND, Toronto Port Authority, the remote airports, and the arctic (indirectly through territorial government) are subsidized by the federal government. The National Airports System airports all pay rent, and the others only receive capital cost assistance on taxiways and runways. The point of this is that the Toronto Port Authority is one of the very few airport operators which get funding from the federal government beyond capital costs, and Pearson is one of 26 forced to pay rent. It is not an even playing field.

Well looking at the 26 airports which pay rent Charlottetown is probably the smallest so I guess once Toronto Island has passenger and/or movements similar to Charlottetown it should pay rent. However the fact that the airport is making money would allow me to agree that it should remain open until high-speed rail is in place and the land is required.

First off, YTZ does not fall under the National Airports System. By TC definition YTZ is a regional airport: http://www.tc.gc.ca/programs/airports/policy/nap/regionallist.htm.

Next as per the note by TC, YTZ does not receive funding under the National Airport Policy. The subsidy comes from the TPA which itself, of course is funded by, Transport Canada. However, several port authorities do receive subsidies. Maybe we should scrap them all. I would love to see how the city of Toronto copes with Toronto port costs and the where it finds funding needed to ensure safe operation of the ferry and the harbour. Be careful what you wish for....

Again, there are several reasons for funding these airports…network and safety issues are one. But more than that as I have pointed out, that the subsidy has been necessitated because of poor business practices on the part of its customers. This will be a moot point next year. And if Porter brings in enough traffic to bump YTZ into the NAS, then it should pay rent. And it probably will.

It is a chicken and egg debate. The public couldn't choose frequency without the airlines giving them that option to begin with.

Good businesses evolve to serve their customers. I don't see any customers complaining at the abundance of departure times. At the end of the day you are advocating for reduced customer choice (fewer airlines serving Toronto) in the name of improving air transport fuel efficiency. I have pointed out the ultimate end state of this: one airline, limited flights in and out of Toronto to ensure every seat is filled. That's the most efficient scenario and the least capitalist and democratic option at the same time.

I would advocate tolling, taxes, and other incentives to try and get people to make choices which do consider the environment and reduce congestion.

Aviation is severely taxed compared to surface transport, yet it survives. If we lowered taxes to be fair, there would be significantly less long distance driving in Canada and much more flying. And you should note that unless you fill a car, planes do use less fuel per passenger-mile.

I thought with Porter flying an A380 you would understand that the sentence was tongue in cheek. I guess you missed that.

Got it. I was trying to show that scaling does not work as you describe.

The benefits of flying in congested airspace is one thing, a touch-and-go, which is landing practise, would see little benefit in congested airspace. Toronto Island being so small isn't near as congested as Buttonville.

The island’s lack of traffic is what makes it ideal for T&G practice. Operations from the island also allow inexperienced pilots to learn how to interact within terminal area in a less congested corner. Brampton is right under Pearson’s airspace. Buttonville is very busy. Oshawa is quite far. Markham is under equipped as an airfield. All in all, other than Pearson, Toronto has very poor aviation infrastructure for a city/region this size. And you would seek to make that worse.

I did look it up. The numbers are from Danish ministry of transport for fuel consumption averages by aircraft. Trip lengths and seating configuration can impact the numbers. A 737-700 travelling 685km with 120 passengers gets 36g/ASK (grams per available seat km). A Q400 travelling 500km with 72 passengers gets 36g/ASK. Basically the same if you fill the seats on both. For comparison a Fokker 28 (the old jets Canadian used to fly) which also has 72 passengers gets about 55g/ASK flying 550km (52% more fuel than the Q400). I think on average a Q400 is 30% more efficient than a CRJ700, but the longer the flight the less advantage the Q400 has.

Replacing a CRJ700 with a Q400 is always more efficient. Replacing a 737-700 with a Q400 is more efficient for a very short trip length or if the 737-700 is not filling the seats. An A380 is the most efficient aircraft per seat, but if it were to carry 70 people 500km it would probably be able the most inefficient.

Aircraft don't scale fuel consumption linearly. At shorter distances, turboprops win both in speed and fuel consumption owing to the need for turbofans and turbojets to climb to higher cruise altitudes. As a general rule though, anything less than 300nm is more fuel efficient and occasionally faster on a turboprop....any undergrad aerospace engineering student can show you the math to prove this. And I am fairly sure my 4th year aircraft performance did his math right when he taught us this in class. You would have to do a detailed block analysis to know what the exact fuel burn was for each sector using specific fuel consumption numbers (SFC). Those numbers above amount to cherry picking. Airlines do block analysis for all their routes when they buy and deploy aircraft. It's exactly why turboprop demand has skyrocketed lately. Higher fuel prices are finally forcing airlines to do rational analysis on fuel costs and discount the myth of passenger preferences for jets. Indeed, the only reason AC has not bought the Q400 is that it can't find enough of them to buy.

By your numbers here, the Q400 and the B737-700 have the same fuel burn. Now compare something closer….the B737-600. Since Airbus optimizes for the A320 and Boeing for the B737-700, anything smaller has much higher fuel burn. What’s more those numbers do not take into account the significantly higher cruise altitude of jets which has much greater impact at shorter distances. Most aircraft burn up to 25% of their fuel on the climb to their cruising altitude. Porter's Q400 hits cruise altitude before it’s out of the 905. And that's not including reduced fuel burn on taxiing, queueing for departure, etc, compared to Pearson. Also, given that most of Porter's flights are less than 685km, it is that much more efficient than your 737 example because its carrying less fuel weight to begin with owing to reduced fuel burn on climb.

You should also note that AC is downsizing because it wasn’t filling its aircraft. Sure some flights would be packed. But the rest of the time it’s flying half empty. Porter right sized its aircraft here. It should get credit for being ahead of the game. With only 70 seats on each Q400 guess who has more chance of filling its aircraft? That scale argument might not be as strong as you think.

As for your wish to see AC fill up and up size….note the prior argument on customer choice and airline competition…..

No. We should grant that benefit to the other GTA residents.

There in is the rub. Would you be willing to pay for the relocation of Pearson or the 200 000 residents who suffer from aircraft noise more than you do? And where would you move the airport to make it convenient or the residents so that they suffer noise at about the same level that you do right now.

Your fellow downtowner puts it well:

That being said, I love flying Porter. And I live quite close (walking distance) and face south towards the airport. I find the sound of screeching streetcars and traffic to be far worse than the sound of the Porter planes. In fact, the small personal aircraft create far more noticeable noise, and they've been flying out of that airport for years.

While environmental concerns may be valid, there is something to be said for an airport that can more easily be accessed via public transit or even walking. And I think people should be far more concerned with the amount of pollution created by the 24-hour traffic on the Gardiner and Lakeshore than the 20 flights leaving the island airport every day.

Ultimately, I don't disagree with you about the end state for the Island airport. However, I am against taking it down so early. Let's finish the rest of the waterfront. Let's build up our aviation infrastructure to an appropriate level for the GTA. Then we can focus on the islands.

http://www.reportonbusiness.com/ser...ediscussion/BNStory/specialSmallBusiness/home
http://www.toromagazine.com/?q=node/437

In the meanwhile, let's give Porter a chance to succeed. We have an airline here that is based in Toronto, hires Torontonians (according to Deluce maybe upto 1000 employees), uses the greenest aircraft in its class which is also built by Torontonians, is growing rapidly provides some of the best service in the industry, is lead by a Canadian, is committed to bringing tourists to Toronto and is financially successful. What has AC or Wesjet done for us lately in comparison?

 

[kEiThZ]

PUBLICATION: National Post
DATE: 2008.09.18
EDITION: Toronto
SECTION: Toronto
PAGE: A11
BYLINE: Allison Hanes
SOURCE: National Post
WORD COUNT: 503

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Airline claims 'guerrilla' tactics by city; Court Fight; Judge to decide if bylaws aim to disrupt Porter

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two years after Porter Airlines began service out of Toronto island airport amid howls of protest, the lingering animosity between some city politicians and the airport has escalated into a court battle.

The Toronto Port Authority, which runs the Toronto City Centre Airport, and Porter, its main occupant, sued the city over a series of bylaws it claims are "unreasonable" and intended to disrupt operations.

After a hearing this week in Ontario Superior Court, a judge will soon determine whether two city measures were conceived in "bad faith" by councillors who have staked their careers on opposing the airport.

Toronto and East York community council wants to use a no-stopping bylaw to kill a taxi bay at the foot of Bathurst

Street, and it also wants to build a sidewalk to facilitate pedestrian traffic on the street.

"What was really going on here was a guerrilla campaign -- an effort to interfere with the airport," lawyer Tim Hill, representing the plaintiffs, argued in court this week.

The city's legal argument is that a strip of land on the west side of Bathurst beside Norway Park that the city leases to the port authority is supposed to be a fenced-in parking lot with spots perpendicular to the street.

Instead it was transformed into three lanes for taxis to queue just north of the airport ferry terminal running parallel to the street.

"Porter started operating before there was any agreement that the finger lot could be reconfigured for taxi use," Charles Campbell, the city's lawyer, told the court.

One councillor, who sees Porter's service in and out of downtown as an opportunity to boost flagging tourism, thinks it's time for some of his colleagues to swallow their political pride and accept that the airport is here to stay.

"I do personally believe that it is politically motivated," said Councillor Michael Thompson (Scarborough Centre), who sat on a committee aimed at improving tourism to Toronto last spring.

"To get the court to decide on some of these issues is quite frankly a waste of the court's time," he added.

"I think that Porter has proven themselves to be a valid, integral business in the city of Toronto, whether you like it or not."

Mayor David Miller made good on a promise to cancel a planned bridge to the island airport immediately upon winning office.

Olivia Chow, a former city councillor who is now the federal MP for the area, vowed to boycott Porter. Her successor, Councillor Adam Vaughan (Trinity Spadina) heckled officials the day of Porter's launch.

Mr. Vaughan denies that the court skirmish is sour grapes, pointing out the port authority, backed by Porter, sued the city.

"Instead of coming to council and community council to depute and talk about it they just went straight to court like they usually do," he said.

"Hopefully, the court will see that we're trying to balance the needs of everybody, create a safe intersection. We're still leaving them with ample amounts of land to conduct their business, we're just telling them they shouldn't queue taxis next to a school playground, and the priority is to make the neighbourhood safe for school children, not for taxi drivers."

Despite the initial hopes of some detractors that Porter would die a quick death, the airline shows many signs of success.

Porter has added flights to Halifax, Quebec City and New York City in addition to its initial Ottawa and Montreal routes. It has tripled the size of its lounge, offering self-serve. And nearly all its white leather seats were filled on some flights this summer.

ahanes@nationalpost.com

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Obviously there is a requirement to have an airport in the GTA. Currently Pearson is the airport that has the ability to serve the needs of the city from very large aircraft to commuter aircraft. I have no problem with closing Pearson if that capacity is replaced elsewhere. It isn't about residents being more or less important. There is a need for capacity. There is no need for Toronto Island airport.

Ironically Pearson is running out of runway capacity (in terms of take offs and landings), even with the twinning of 05-23. They are looking to eventually drop all small commuter aircraft movements. That means that some other regional airport would have to pick up that slack.

 

[nfitz]

Ironically Pearson is running out of runway capacity (in terms of take offs and landings), even with the twinning of 05-23. They are looking to eventually drop all small commuter aircraft movements. That means that some other regional airport would have to pick up that slack.

I'd think there would be need for 2 or 3 airports.

I just don't get the anti-environmentally friendly folks who would shut down a perfectly good downtown airport for reasons I can't fathom. It's not like anyone is going to be seriously complaining about the noise - the airport has been around longer than virtually anyone living nearby has been alive - so I can't imagine anyone hypocritical enough to move somewhere and then complain about those noise. A little extra traffic down there doesn't seem major - and is nothing compared to what's going to be created by the big box Loblaws being built at Bathurst and Lakeshore. The area is surrounded by parkland and lakefront access, so this can't be the issue.

Development kickbacks is the only thing that could possibly make sense ...

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I'd think there would be need for 2 or 3 airports.

I just don't get the anti-environmentally friendly folks who would shut down a perfectly good downtown airport for reasons I can't fathom. It's not like anyone is going to be seriously complaining about the noise - the airport has been around longer than virtually anyone living nearby has been alive - so I can't imagine anyone hypocritical enough to move somewhere and then complain about those noise. A little extra traffic down there doesn't seem major - and is nothing compared to what's going to be created by the big box Loblaws being built at Bathurst and Lakeshore. The area is surrounded by parkland and lakefront access, so this can't be the issue.

Development kickbacks is the only thing that could possibly make sense ...

Right, and the island airport can be one of those airports. It's terribly shortsighted to tear down an existing airport given how difficult it's becoming to build new ones (see Pickering)

 

[Automation Gallery]

In the meanwhile, let's give Porter a chance to succeed. We have an airline here that is based in Toronto, hires Torontonians (according to Deluce maybe upto 1000 employees), uses the greenest aircraft in its class which is also built by Torontonians, is growing rapidly provides some of the best service in the industry, is lead by a Canadian, is committed to bringing tourists to Toronto and is financially successful. What has AC or Wesjet done for us lately in comparison?

Why cant Torontonians vote on the future of the airport, instead of having half dozen extreme left wing politicians down at Cityhall listing to the half dozen nimbys that are trying to pressure a closure of the CityCentre Airport.