[sjc]

The Port Authority has told Air Canada that they can start flights, but they would need to sign an agreement with the TPA. This is necessary because there are limited flight slots available.

Air Canada has never really demonstrated any desire to office useful service from the Island. Air Ontario used to have good service in the 90s, but the last few years before Porter arrived AC Jazz had reduced service to one plane (the first flight out of Toronto to YOW was 8:30am and the last flight back was 4:30pm -- which is not very useful for people trying to go to business meetings).

US Air also applied to start service and the TPA agreed. However, US Air never followed up on it.

 

[Automation Gallery]

Tell that to Air Canada.

Well if they cant use it, then its payback for all the years they operated Jazz as a monoply out of City Centre Airport.

At the moment
Tenants include:

Cameron Air Service
Canadian Flyers International, Flight School and Charters
Ornge Transport Medicine (Ontario Air Ambulance/MOHLTC)
CHC Helicopter - On contract to ORNGE/MOHLTC
Private Air
Island Air Flight School & Charters (Hangar 4)
Porter Airlines
Trans Capital Air

 

[sjc]

NDP MP Olivia Chow, whose federal Trinity-Spadina riding includes the island airport, released a statement yesterday calling on Ottawa to invest in repairing Toronto's "aged infrastructure" instead of "funding a tunnel for a privileged few."

I'm guessing that the "privileged few" she is referring to are not the residents of the Island.

If the "privileged few" are the passengers of Porter Airlines, I think it is worth pointing out that Porter is expecting 500,000 passengers this year and a million next year. While not in the same league as Pearson, I'm not sure I would call a million people a year "a few".

We spend public money on other things that benefit a lot fewer than a million people.

Also, how exactly are they "privileged"? Tickets are available to anyone that wants them and are generally quite reasonably-priced, especially for people willing to be flexible with their flight times. It may be true that a credit card is needed, so perhaps she is referring to people that are privileged to have a credit card?

 

[CDL.TO]

The Port Authority has told Air Canada that they can start flights, but they would need to sign an agreement with the TPA. This is necessary because there are limited flight slots available.

The real issue is that Porter owns all the ground facilities at the airport now. Sure, perhaps they could negotiate some slots. But what good is it when Porter owns the terminal and the ground crews?

Look, I agree that Air Canada completely failed to properly utilize the airport when they served it. And I can also agree that there's a good reason to keep Air Canada out because all they would do is predatory price until Porter is put out of business, then cut back service. But don't tell me that Air Canada is free to serve the airport if they want when this is clearly not the case.

Well if they cant use it, then its payback for all the years they operated Jazz as a monoply out of City Centre Airport.

Payback? They didn't block anyone else from operating out of the airport. Who else would do so? Westjet? Jetsgo?

At the moment
Tenants include:

Cameron Air Service
Canadian Flyers International, Flight School and Charters
Ornge Transport Medicine (Ontario Air Ambulance/MOHLTC)
CHC Helicopter - On contract to ORNGE/MOHLTC
Private Air
Island Air Flight School & Charters (Hangar 4)
Porter Airlines
Trans Capital Air

Other than Porter, none of those are scheduled airlines.

There's a big difference between Bob flying his Cessna 206 into the airport in order to shuttle businessmen to their golfing weekend in Muskoka and Air Canada providing regular scheduled service.

 

[sjc]

The real issue is that Porter owns all the ground facilities at the airport now....But what good is it when Porter owns the terminal and the ground crews?

While Porter controls most of the facilities, they don't control all of them. I'm pretty sure that the big hanger at the east end belongs to someone else (Stolport?). Does Porter control the old historic terminal?

Could Air Canada not bring in their own ground crews? If not, I would think that Porter would be required to provide ground services to any airline. This is particularly true for any US airlines, as the Canada-US agreement requires this.

If necessary, Air Canada could operate out of a trailer, like Air Ontario used to do before they built the terminal that Porter is now using. Or they could set up something on the mainland side and bus people to their planes.

 

[rbt]

Other airlines can use the island airport if they want to.

Not really. Porter has exclusive use of the terminal building (not owner of terminal building is Porters parent company) and contracted rights to all of the runway time slots.

Either of those two things prevents another airline from using it, both makes it pretty firm.

Incidentally, Porter kicked Air Canada off the island before starting up their own airline.

 

[Automation Gallery]

There's a big difference between Bob flying his Cessna 206 into the airport in order to shuttle businessmen to their golfing weekend in Muskoka and Air Canada providing regular scheduled service.

Come on..... Air Canada already has Pearson International.

 

[Silence&Motion]

They are just giving some blatantly hypocritical denunciation of government intervention in the economy. Considering their entire reason d'etre is to advocate for more government intervention, it is so painfully idiotic of them to make that argument.

That's a really misleading and simplified interpretation of the NDP/socialist/labour political position. The NDP advocates for government intervention in the economy for the purpose of redistributing wealth and resources. Government intervention is a means to an end, not an end in itself, and definitely not the NDP's "entire reason d'etre".

What end is being served in building this tunnel? To provide Porter Airlines with a new front door? This is a completely regressive use of taxpayers' money. Porter Airlines is a private company, and if they are as successful as everyone claims, then they can pay for the tunnel themselves. And since the island airport is probably not going to be expanded, it can't even be argued that the tunnel will act as a catalyst for any significant economic growth.

 

[Ed Drass]

Toronto Island Airport tunnel: Transport 2000 Ontario opposed

(I got this earlier...)

For immediate release

August 25, 2009

(Toronto) The Toronto Port Authority has asked for $38 million to build a pedestrian tunnel from the waterfront to the island airport. The Premier is reportedly willing to consider the request. Ottawa will be asked to contribute half.

"The current ferry service carries 150 passengers. Porter’s planes carry 70 passengers. Why build a $38 million tunnel for such a small population?" asks Natalie Litwin, president of Transport 2000 Ontario. “Transport 2000 does not think a pedestrian tunnel to the island is wise use of government funds. In effect it is a subsidy of Porter Airlines.â€

Litwin notes many important infrastructure projects have yet to receive stimulus money including Metrolinx which is waiting for most of the $6 billion it needs from the federal government to kick-start major transit projects in the GTA.

“Short haul air travel produces more greenhouse gases per passenger mile than any other form of travel because planes use a lot of fuel during takeoffs and landings. Air travel is only efficient for longer distances. A better use of the funds would be to invest more in VIA Rail to increase its medium and short distance service,†Litwin says.

 

[jn_12]

While the new terminal is being built and operated by Porter, they are open to leasing out space in the terminal if another airline were to want in. The new terminal will have ten gates, double what they have now. They could operate 8 or 9 of the 10 and then lease the remaining out if they wanted. It's just a matter of what makes sense financially to them.

 

[rbt]

While the new terminal is being built and operated by Porter, they are open to leasing out space in the terminal if another airline were to want in.

IIRC they went to court once over this issue and Porter won the right to not let the other company in at a time when Porter was using 0 gates (they hadn't received aircraft yet). This would be a rather large change in position.

 

[EnviroTO]

That is my understanding as well. Other airlines have the right to serve the airport but Porter doesn't need to let them use their buildings. This means that there is one or two parking spaces for other airlines in front of the Trans-Capital Air hanger and that is it.

 

[EnviroTO]

If the "privileged few" are the passengers of Porter Airlines, I think it is worth pointing out that Porter is expecting 500,000 passengers this year and a million next year. While not in the same league as Pearson, I'm not sure I would call a million people a year "a few".

Pretty sure that isn't a million people. McDonalds serves around 17 billion customers a year but that doesn't mean everyone on the planet ate at McDonald's in addition to 10 billion aliens. I wouldn't be surprised if Porter's unique customer count is less than 30,000.

 

[kEiThZ]

Pretty sure that isn't a million people. McDonalds serves around 17 billion customers a year but that doesn't mean everyone on the planet ate at McDonald's in addition to 10 billion aliens. I wouldn't be surprised if Porter's unique customer count is less than 30,000.

Are you suggesting that every Porter customer will be flying over 30 times this year? I doubt that very much. I am willing to bet that the unique customer count is at least 100 000 or higher. Regardless, that's not the point. Governments routinely spend millions to service far fewer than even 30 000 people with infrastructure. Yet, here an obvious decision to replace a fume belching ferry with a pedestrian alternative is being denied by skewed politics. Where's the concern for the environment in that?

Porter's already won. It's here to stay. Why continue the pointless charade? And needlessly keep a polluting ferry service in operation?

 

[sjc]

Yet, here an obvious decision to replace a fume belching ferry with a pedestrian alternative is being denied by skewed politics.

I don't believe that the ferry would be replaced by the tunnel. It would be complemented by it. There would continue to be a need for vehicle access to the island which would not be provided by the tunnel.

Personally, I think that they should make the tunnel big enough for vehicle traffic and extend it north to connect with the Allen Road. Put in connectors to the Gardiner as well and that would satisfy those that are complaining that it would only benefit Porter passengers.