Tuscani01
Senior Member
casaguy
Senior Member
And that article is here:
--------------------------
Toronto Island airport expansion set for takeoff
Air traffic to grow up to 77 per cent by the end of 2010
Jennifer Yang
Staff reporter
Published On Wed Dec 30 2009
For the Toronto Island airport, 2010 will be the year of expansion.
As Porter Airlines' $45 million terminal nears completion, the Toronto Port Authority is announcing a need for "further capital expenditures" at the airport, anticipating as many as 92 additional daily flights by the end of 2010.
Currently, Porter is the sole commercial carrier operating from the recently renamed Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport, with access to 120 "slots" – spaces allocated for takeoffs and landings each day. Before Porter, the airport handled 25,000 passengers annually; this year that number is expected to reach 750,000.
Several airlines have been eyeing Billy Bishop's runways, according to port authority chairman Mark McQueen. In a recent news release, the port authority announced it could add between 42 and 92 slots per day once the new terminal is completed, a potential increase in air traffic by as much as 77 per cent.
"Based upon the informal requests we've received from commercial carriers, demand for new slots far exceeds the supply available," McQueen said in the release.
Continental Airlines and Air Canada Jazz are rumoured to be interested, with the latter still fighting to return to the island where it once flew.
The increase in flights puts the port authority on a collision course with island and waterfront residents concerned about noise and pollution, as well as Councillor Adam Vaughan, a vocal critic.
The port authority's announcement was triggered by a preliminary report from an updated noise impact study and "capacity assessment."
The study, by aviation consultant Jacobs Consultancy analyzed noise guidelines, hours of operation, infrastructure limitations and the availability of parking and transportation, among other things.
The port authority's release, which was issued Christmas Eve, says the study identified a need for future capital expenditures, although it didn't specify what this could entail. The port authority recently bought a new ferry to shuttle passengers to the airport.
Port authority officials did not respond to the Star's requests for an interview Tuesday.
Waterfront residents have always fiercely resisted island airport expansion, whether it comes in the form of increased air traffic or a proposed $38 million tunnel that would connect the airport to the mainland, a controversial idea shelved earlier this year.
"We're so distressed about what was meant to be a small inconsequential airport has just been ramping up and ramping up into this major commercial airport. ... This is such a travesty for all visitors to Toronto's waterfront," said Pam Mazza, a board member of CommunityAIR, a grassroots organization that wants to close the airport.
"The focal point for CommunityAIR is the noise and the pollution and the safety elements of this airport," said Mazza.
"This is not an island community issue. This is a waterfront Toronto issue. This is about every visitor who comes to this park, every visitor who comes to the waterfront, every community living on the waterfront. ... It's about noise, it's about pollution, it's all the things about airports that do not belong in a residential, recreational neighbourhood.
"Nothing about this airport fits in with any other user group on the waterfront, whether it be residential, recreational or the huge bird sanctuary that is so critical to the migratory patterns of the birds.
"They do engine run-ups on Sunday morning at 7 a.m. (servicing the engines so they are revved at high rates for five to 15 minutes at a time)."
Mayor David Miller has also been a prominent opponent of overdeveloping the airport, but as he prepares to leave city hall, some fear the port authority is taking the opportunity to ramp up plans for expansion.
Vaughan is concerned about the announcement's implications. "(The Toronto Port Authority) would have to start bending rules," he said, adding the potential flight additions will violate the 1983 Tripartite Agreement, which governs the airport.
Struck between the port authority, federal government and the city, the agreement doesn't specify the maximum number of slots allowed for island flights but it does impose noise limits. Vaughan said an extra 92 flights would be a breach of acceptable noise thresholds.
Brian Iler, the chair of CommunityAIR, is imploring city officials to step in and enforce the Tripartite Agreement. He said the Christmas Eve announcement is just another example of the port authority testing how far it can bend the rules.
"I see this as a shot across the bow," Iler said. "They want to see if they can really get away with it."
With files from Dale Anne Freed
--------------------------
Toronto Island airport expansion set for takeoff
Air traffic to grow up to 77 per cent by the end of 2010
Jennifer Yang
Staff reporter
Published On Wed Dec 30 2009
For the Toronto Island airport, 2010 will be the year of expansion.
As Porter Airlines' $45 million terminal nears completion, the Toronto Port Authority is announcing a need for "further capital expenditures" at the airport, anticipating as many as 92 additional daily flights by the end of 2010.
Currently, Porter is the sole commercial carrier operating from the recently renamed Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport, with access to 120 "slots" – spaces allocated for takeoffs and landings each day. Before Porter, the airport handled 25,000 passengers annually; this year that number is expected to reach 750,000.
Several airlines have been eyeing Billy Bishop's runways, according to port authority chairman Mark McQueen. In a recent news release, the port authority announced it could add between 42 and 92 slots per day once the new terminal is completed, a potential increase in air traffic by as much as 77 per cent.
"Based upon the informal requests we've received from commercial carriers, demand for new slots far exceeds the supply available," McQueen said in the release.
Continental Airlines and Air Canada Jazz are rumoured to be interested, with the latter still fighting to return to the island where it once flew.
The increase in flights puts the port authority on a collision course with island and waterfront residents concerned about noise and pollution, as well as Councillor Adam Vaughan, a vocal critic.
The port authority's announcement was triggered by a preliminary report from an updated noise impact study and "capacity assessment."
The study, by aviation consultant Jacobs Consultancy analyzed noise guidelines, hours of operation, infrastructure limitations and the availability of parking and transportation, among other things.
The port authority's release, which was issued Christmas Eve, says the study identified a need for future capital expenditures, although it didn't specify what this could entail. The port authority recently bought a new ferry to shuttle passengers to the airport.
Port authority officials did not respond to the Star's requests for an interview Tuesday.
Waterfront residents have always fiercely resisted island airport expansion, whether it comes in the form of increased air traffic or a proposed $38 million tunnel that would connect the airport to the mainland, a controversial idea shelved earlier this year.
"We're so distressed about what was meant to be a small inconsequential airport has just been ramping up and ramping up into this major commercial airport. ... This is such a travesty for all visitors to Toronto's waterfront," said Pam Mazza, a board member of CommunityAIR, a grassroots organization that wants to close the airport.
"The focal point for CommunityAIR is the noise and the pollution and the safety elements of this airport," said Mazza.
"This is not an island community issue. This is a waterfront Toronto issue. This is about every visitor who comes to this park, every visitor who comes to the waterfront, every community living on the waterfront. ... It's about noise, it's about pollution, it's all the things about airports that do not belong in a residential, recreational neighbourhood.
"Nothing about this airport fits in with any other user group on the waterfront, whether it be residential, recreational or the huge bird sanctuary that is so critical to the migratory patterns of the birds.
"They do engine run-ups on Sunday morning at 7 a.m. (servicing the engines so they are revved at high rates for five to 15 minutes at a time)."
Mayor David Miller has also been a prominent opponent of overdeveloping the airport, but as he prepares to leave city hall, some fear the port authority is taking the opportunity to ramp up plans for expansion.
Vaughan is concerned about the announcement's implications. "(The Toronto Port Authority) would have to start bending rules," he said, adding the potential flight additions will violate the 1983 Tripartite Agreement, which governs the airport.
Struck between the port authority, federal government and the city, the agreement doesn't specify the maximum number of slots allowed for island flights but it does impose noise limits. Vaughan said an extra 92 flights would be a breach of acceptable noise thresholds.
Brian Iler, the chair of CommunityAIR, is imploring city officials to step in and enforce the Tripartite Agreement. He said the Christmas Eve announcement is just another example of the port authority testing how far it can bend the rules.
"I see this as a shot across the bow," Iler said. "They want to see if they can really get away with it."
With files from Dale Anne Freed
Team Me
Active Member
I live by the waterfront, but have supported the Island Airport as a small alternative for a local regional carrier. But flying 120 flights out of this airport a day is ridiculous. I even think adding other carriers is too much.
If they keep one carrier (Porter), reasonable operating hours (6:30 to 10:00), a reasonable number of flights (15 to 25 a day) and all propeller-based planes, I think it still is a really great benefit to the city.
But what's being talked about in this article is ridiculous. 120 flights a day goes way beyond the capacity of a small, regional waterfront airport. And if they allow other carriers to use jet engines, the noise and pollution complaints will be much more valid.
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
Team Me
Active Member
My concern about jet engines wasn't actually directed towards Porter. I think the use of "jets" in that Star subhead was improperly used as a substitute for "planes."
My bigger concern about jets is when Air Canada and Continental get in there. I imagine they'll want to use jets in place of, or in addition to, propeller planes.
sjc
Active Member
What jets would Air Canada or Continental fly that can takeoff within 4000 feet?
jn_12
Senior Member
They're already flying way more than 15-25 flights per day. They haven't flown that little amount of flights since they were just doing Ottawa and Montreal a couple years ago. In fact they're up to 50 take offs and 50 landings now.
120 flights per day is a flight every 7.5 minutes. I don't think that's too bad really considering today it's one every 15 minutes.
allabootmatt
Senior Member
...and, unfortunately, Porter has opened a can of worms here. Monopoly access to what is, it turns out, a highly desirable facility was never going to last. So the pro-competition bones in my body are cheering on AC and CO; the anti-airport bones are upset at the increase in volume.
Of course, with Jazz and CO at the Island I suppose it's at least conceivable Porter could be killed off. It wouldn't be too tough for either of those two monsters to undercut them for long enough to drive them out of business. Flights from YTZ are Porter's only revenue; losing money on them would be the tiniest pinprick for a major carrier.
In which case we'll be right back where we started.
Of course, with Jazz and CO at the Island I suppose it's at least conceivable Porter could be killed off. It wouldn't be too tough for either of those two monsters to undercut them for long enough to drive them out of business. Flights from YTZ are Porter's only revenue; losing money on them would be the tiniest pinprick for a major carrier.
In which case we'll be right back where we started.
kEiThZ
Superstar
The Island is too small for all but the smallest of business jets. Nobody needs to worry about airlines running RJs outta there. And 120 flights a day is not that much for an airport that operates for 16 hours a day. That's 7.5 flights per hour or one every 8 mins. We aren't talking a mini-Pearson here (which at peak runs a minute a bird). A departing aircraft will be past Durham region before the next one is lining up.
kEiThZ
Superstar
You'd be surprised, but this time around it's harder than you think. Even if Jazz sets up at the Island, it won't be able to match Porter's service or schedule (fewer slots). It will use planes that are a decade older, fly a lot slower and are not as comfoertable. And if Jazz does drop fares on the Island, it could just as likely end up canibalizing Air Canada's business. Porter has already taken away lots of frequent fliers from AC. Adding Jazz to the Island risks getting less revenue from some who are remaining (by downgrading them from AC mainline business fares). Continental is going to be in a slightly different boat but just as tough. For CO, YTZ is just a feeder. They can't offer the service or schedules. As for dropping fares, airlines today aren't really in a position to take those kinds of hits these days, especially not against competitors who are successful and well capitalized like Porter, no matter how big they are. And while Air Canada might play that game for a bit, there's no way CO will give up expend tens of millions to challenge a regional competitor on what largely amounts to one route to a city where they don't really have brand recognition either.
jn_12
Senior Member
If AC had any chance of taking down Porter it would have been whn Porter just started and was only flying to YOW and YUL. 3 years in, Porter is too big and too well established to be taken down by something as small as lower fares from AC. It would take AC or any other airline to come in and somehow offer equal or better service (quantity of flights and quality of service) for a better price. Is that possible? Probably not.
The only way Porter slips is if their customer service slips, and i think there are some serious concerns there. The main problem with Porter growing so fast is that all of the quality employees are moving up the company rather quickly. They're also hiring in bunches, so there's a lot of inexperienced people working the front lines. This is putting a lot of pressure on front end staff because anyone that is really good at front end stuff is moves on to better positions, thereby leaving the front end somewhat eroded in terms of quality. I know this is a problem in most work settings, but for an airline based on high levels of customer service it's not exactly optimal. They really need to stabilize themselves before they grow further and I think that's what 2010 has in store for them, especially with the new terminal coming on line.
But honestly, if anyone is looking to get into the airline industry, start at Porter. If you're good, you'll probably get promoted within a year and have a good chance at another promotion within another year. It's an exciting company to be at, so it's definitely worth looking into.
The only way Porter slips is if their customer service slips, and i think there are some serious concerns there. The main problem with Porter growing so fast is that all of the quality employees are moving up the company rather quickly. They're also hiring in bunches, so there's a lot of inexperienced people working the front lines. This is putting a lot of pressure on front end staff because anyone that is really good at front end stuff is moves on to better positions, thereby leaving the front end somewhat eroded in terms of quality. I know this is a problem in most work settings, but for an airline based on high levels of customer service it's not exactly optimal. They really need to stabilize themselves before they grow further and I think that's what 2010 has in store for them, especially with the new terminal coming on line.
But honestly, if anyone is looking to get into the airline industry, start at Porter. If you're good, you'll probably get promoted within a year and have a good chance at another promotion within another year. It's an exciting company to be at, so it's definitely worth looking into.
Darwinkgo
Active Member
The airport could accommodate BAe 146s, but that will never happen due to the tripartite agreement. It would provide more seats per aircraft and quieter operation (allowing more slots).
The ERJ 145 might be able to fit aswell, but the Q400 has more capacity so why bother.
TOareaFan
Superstar
As much as it might be fun to consider partisanship.....likely just a function of time of the year.....rookie headline writer in over the holidays, first aviation story....confuses the common (wrong) synonyms of jets and planes...stpry says "more planes" headline writer writes "more jets" as it is easier/sounds better....being the holidays, even the best proofreaders/editors are away and the incorrect headline runs and, given the controversy of the subject, more is made of sloppy headline writing than need be!
kEiThZ
Superstar
What they can safely operate and what they can economically operate from the Island are two different stories. Those aircraft would not get a lot of range-payload while departing from such a short runway.
And being jet aircraft, they would require very high passenger loads just to break even. Porter can fill less than half the aircraft today and still make a profit, and have the range and payload to get to worthwhile destinations. Many of their US destinations would not be feasible with RJs from the Island.