muller877 said:
I wonder if he will become one. We'll find out next week.

With the expected lower number of ministers, gender, diversity and regional concerns I'm not so sure. There will be a lot of unhappy Toronto MP's on Nov 5th and he might be one of them.

There are a lot of Liberal MP's that have more experience than him throughout the GTA. Will they include Bill Blair, Mark Holland, John McCallum, Peter Fonseca, James Maloney, John McKay and Adam Vaughn in their cabinet list? (and I'm probably forgetting a few) No. Maybe one or two.

Say there is 30 cabinet ministers. 15 female, 15 male. Of the male ones 5+ may be visible minorities. That leaves 10 white guys (max). Then you look at "star" candidates and the regions which are mainly represented by white males. Scott Brison, Ralph Goodale, Andrew Leslie, Trudeau, Stephane Dion, LeBlanc, and MacAuley are names I would expect in the cabinet. So 3 left...and they have experienced cabinet ministers from Toronto that may take precedence over Adam Vaughan
Click to expand...

Looks like you're right. It's all down to numbers, and Vaughan's gonna get passed over.

m.thestar.com/#/article/opinion/commentary/2015/11/01/how-justin-trudeau-picked-his-new-cabinet-hepburn.html

Does that change the calculus on jets at the airport? Vaughan sez no but Karygiannis sez maybe.

m.thestar.com/#/article/news/gta/2015/11/02/trudeau-government-says-no-to-island-airport-jets.html
 
Well, that just took a big bite out of Porter's market value to potential investors/buyers. The primary owners, EdgeStone Capital, OMERS, GE Asset Management will not be pleased.

I always thought it was odd to base your entire business model on having a single airport.
 
A fortress hub is often a successful airline strategy.

What seemed foolish to me was having no clear growth strategy other than one which depended on getting multiple levels of government to agree on a physical expansion to an airport in a dense urban core.
 
I am just wondering, if a company was to build an even larger and longer range prop based plane, like a 110 seat prop plane, is there any restriction in Bill Bishop using that instead of Jets?

As in are simply jets restricted from the airport, or is it a specific kind of size of plane?
 
Jets for scheduled flights are banned. (Not sure what the actual phrasing of the ban is, as Medevac jets use the airport on a regular basis.)

A larger prop would not be banned, but would almost certainly be unable to use the airport due to the short runway. The range of the Q400s Porter and Air Canada use are already range-restricted due to the short runway.
 
No Jets is just a clumsy/simplistic way of regulating noise......it creates the situation where planes are banned even though they are quieter than some that are not banned.

Regulate noise by using the science that allows for that.....don't regulate technology. But, I suspect, the no jets mantra is being used for different purposes now than just to regulate noise.
 
CDL.TO said:
The range of the Q400s Porter and Air Canada use are already range-restricted due to the short runway.
Click to expand...

Ah I did not know that.

So would Porter still have an interest in extending the runway to allow for longer flights (aka new destinations and less layovers) with the current Q400 fleet?
 
I can't say I'm to surprised by the end result.

Based on the chatter from the city hall press gallery, support for the expansion among council was limited.
 
CDL.TO said:
A fortress hub is often a successful airline strategy.

What seemed foolish to me was having no clear growth strategy other than one which depended on getting multiple levels of government to agree on a physical expansion to an airport in a dense urban core.
Click to expand...

I'm have a 'conspiracy theory' moment on this one. I just can't believe that Porter really thought they were going to win, and it was mostly about setting themselves up to get the bulk of the new slots for props when they expand the number of landings instead of the runway.
 
Riverdale Rink Rat said:
I'm have a 'conspiracy theory' moment on this one. I just can't believe that Porter really thought they were going to win, and it was mostly about setting themselves up to get the bulk of the new slots for props when they expand the number of landings instead of the runway.
Click to expand...

Based on their extensive PR campaign, including plastering the broadsheets with page-wide "I'm on board" ads, I think expansion was always the end goal. Plus, given the Deluce family's donations in the municipal election, they thought they had a great chance:

porter.png
 

Attachments

  • porter.png
    porter.png
    52.2 KB · Views: 424
And it had a very good chance of going through if not for the recent change of guard at the Federal level, considering the attitude at City Hall and Ports Toronto/TPA. Funny how PT is now claiming that the Feds should listen to the city (and not the city that was pre-2010).

Of course, to make it extra special, never mind that the board composition at TPA was loaded - and the original Tripartite agreement was with the Old City of Toronto (which of course most, if not all of the donors on the list had ever represented based on the old boundaries).

AoD
 
Last edited:
CDL.TO said:
A larger prop would not be banned, but would almost certainly be unable to use the airport due to the short runway.
Click to expand...
Assuming cargo freight via Billy Bishop could be justified, civilian versions of the An-70 and A400 Atlas would be able to use the runway, especially if with a useful but light load.

4e1bbcd2-014b-ad36.png


640px-RAF_A400M_Lands_at_RAF_Brize_Norton.jpg


For example, here is a Lockheed C-130 Hercules at Toronto Island Airport in 2009 https://nowtoronto.com/news/mystery-planes/
 
^people may recall my post from armed forces day at BMO Field.....one of those Hercs did a fly by and we could hear it all the way out over the lake.....prompting a person near me to comment on the irony that that plane could, technically, land at the island but the much quieter C Series cannot.

He was not making a political statement just pointing out, much more clearly than I have been able to, how strange it is that noise is legislated by banning a technology.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top