On July 23, this blog carried an article praising the Toronto Port Authority for cutting down on planes that broke the airport curfew.

John Townsend responded the next day with a comment that pointed out the TPA should be congratulated for nothing.  He was right. 

On Sunday, August 3, the TPA allowed Porter Airlines flight POE 132 to arrive at the island airport after the curfew hour.  The TPA allowed the same thing to happen again last night, Wednesday, August 6.

What’s going on?

 It appears that the TPA has no intention of stopping curfew breaking flights, allowing recurrences within days.  Either it has no power to stop these after hour flights or it is turning a blind eye to them.  The TPA has given no evidence and no assurance that it is doing anything about them.

Porter Airlines does not seem to have a consistent policy about diverting these late arrivals to Pearson.  Flight POE 132 is on time only 25% of the time.  It has diverted to Pearson the same number of times.  In fact, 72% of the flights are late, very late, or excessively late according to flightstats.com.

Transport Canada doesn’t appear to be ready to do anything about the curfew breakers either.  Although Transport Canada is a signatory to the Tripartite Agreement that sets the airport’s hours of operation, it seems ready to allow its client, the port authority, to break its word without lifting a finger.

Transport Canada’s apparent position should come as no surprise.  On January 27, 1986, the Toronto Star, in an article titled ‘Cramped Islands airport shows strain Commercial flights jostle for space on busy runways’, reported that the transport department was developing a $20,000,000 plan to upgrade the airport.  Add another $35,000,000 from the bridge settlement and these people are in it for the long haul – curfew or no curfew.

Bob Kotyk

If noise is a problem at the island airport now, think what it will be like in the future.  The following is an excerpt of an interview in a recent issue of Toro Magazine with Porter Airline president, Robert Deluce.

Toro Magazine: Please tell us about your plans for further expansion into the U.S.
market - and how far this can go if you continue to use propeller aircraft
and fly from the limited confines of the Island Airport.

Robert Deluce: We identified 17 Canadian and U.S. destinations as part of the original
business plan and have already added others beyond this. By the end of this
year, we'll be in one more U.S. market, with at least one other by the
spring. Boston, Chicago, Washington and Philadelphia are the top priorities.
Our aircraft fleet will double to 12 within a year and we'll have taken
delivery of all 20 Q400s we have on order in less than two years. This gives
us the ability to fulfill the objectives set out in the original business
plan.

Mr. Deluce’s promise to have taken delivery of all 20 Q400s within two years means that Porter will be able to reach the Tripartite Agreement sanctioned limit of 167 flights daily or a flight landing or taking off every five minutes.

What happened to the "clean, green waterfront" promised by every politician in the city?

Bob Kotyk

On July 8, Globe and Mail columnist John Barber wrote, ‘The islands matter too little to too many’, an opinion piece calling for the land currently occupied by the airport to be turned over to parkland.  He cited the need for better accessibility to ‘Our most beautiful park”.  His solution would be to have airport land revert to parkland and to use the ferry at the foot of Bathurst Street for additional access. 

Currently, the ferry carries airline customers to the island airport only.

There were 132,200 of them in 2007 according to the Toronto Port Authority’s financial statements for that year.

In other words, the airport averaged about 11,000 passengers a month from Jan 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007.
 
During the same period, 1,326,872 or ten times as many people took the ferries at the foot of Bay St. to the rest of the islands, according to Toronto Parks Department statistics.

Indeed, on 30 occasions, the daily passenger count on the park ferries exceeded the airport’s average monthly count.

As well, for 12 out of 12 months, the park ferries passenger numbers far exceeded those of the airport ferry even in the three winter months.

Could the airport be put to better use than to provide for comparatively so few people? 

Do the math. 

When you balance need, John Barber’s call to use the airport for parkland and the airport ferry for greater access makes sense.  But maybe the people who need to use the park aren't as important as the few who choose to use the Island Airport.

Bob Kotyk

"Credit Where Credit's Due"???? Give us a break! What credit is due when they abide by the agreement as they should? The only credit I see is they avoid getting dinged by a fine. At least that's the way it's supposed to work.

John Townsend

Credit Where Credit’s Due

Last night (Tuesday, July 21) Porter Flight POE 132 from Newark ran late.  If the experience of the last 4 ½ months is anything to go by, the flight would have landed at the island airport after curfew.  Other flights up to 17 minutes late or more routinely did so.

Last night, the pilot and crew respected the 11:01 p.m. curfew and diverted the flight to Pearson, sparing airport neighbours the noise of a late night landing.

Those at the port authority deserve credit.

Bob Kotyk

I read the info in the Bulletin on the wretched Port Authority and agree it is a total mess.  The problem is not only that they waste $$ on the airport but they don't even keep their property in good repair.

The City had to do emergency repairs to the harbour wall east of the Airport last year - and as far as I know it has not been completed yet.

Then there is the jetty sticking into the harbour at the Eastern Gap.  The wall is a continuation of the eastern end of Wards Island.  It is in fair condition, but the jetty is in ruins and fenced off. 

It should be repaired by the TPA or removed.

David Crawford

Once again the style mavens of the Toronto media are falling all over themselves praising Porter Air. The latest exercise in puffery is "Are You a Porter Person?", a piece by Toronto Star fashion editor David Graham that reads like it was written by Porter's PR department. According to Graham, the Toronto Island-based airline has "stolen the hearts of style-conscious passengers" with its "enormous cool factor". He even quotes one enthusiast who pronounces the airline "adorable".

Cool-branding the company has been a key part of owner Robert Deluce's marketing strategy from the beginning, and it's certainly paid off in terms of media coverage: Both the Star and the Globe and Mail ran splashy lifestyle stories about Porter's inaugural flight to Newark last spring, for instance. But how much that vaunted "cool factor" is translating into a viable business is a big question mark. With spiralling fuel costs and a tanking economy, it takes more than a handful of fashionistas to keep an airline afloat these days. In recent interviews Deluce has exuded much bravado about the company's "profitability" but then, the guys at Enron insisted that everything was hunky-dory right up until the final moments of the company's fabled collapse. Those "Porter People" in Graham's article better enjoy their free lattes and plush Swiss carpeting while they still can.

Kathleen McDonnell

(Curfew and Noise violations of the Tripartite Agreement are continuing at the Island Airport, and we must register our complaints if we expect to get the Toronto Port Authority to enforce the agreement.  What constitutes a curfew violation is quite clear.  Any aircraft taking-off or landing after 11:00 pm or before 6:45 am is violating the curfew.  There are exceptions for emergencies but that is all.  Noise violations are more difficult to define.  Dennis Findlay has prepared this note to explain the regulations that are in force at the Island Airport.  Even after reading and understanding this note, you may wonder if your complaint about noise is a violation of the regulations.  Don't worry about that.  If noise or a violation of the curfew at the Island Airport disturbs you, please lodge a complaint.  It's important.  Editor's note.)

A)  Q400 - Exceeds Noise limits:

             The close proximity of, then planned and now built, residential communities led to strict noise constraints in the Tripartite Agreement.
From the Tripartite Agreement
- paragraph 14(2)(b) defines excessive noise: for planes weighing more than 5700 kg, other than STOL (the Q400 is not STOL and thus qualifies), as creating a noise level more than 92 EPNdB on approach.
To avoid any ambiguity as to what standard is used for this noise limit, the Tripartite Agreement references data issued by the International Civil Aviation Organization, the UN-affiliated world body governing civil aviation.
ICAO noise data for the Dash 8 -Q400 establishes that the approach noise level is between 93.1 and 94.8; levels in excess of the permitted maximum noise of 92 EPNdB. (A clear violation.)
This is consistent with observations – the most irritating noise for residents and port users is caused by the Q400 reversing its engines on landing.
Based on ICAO data, the Q400 is an aircraft generating excessive noise and is prohibited from using the Island Airport.
Further, s.15 of the Tripartite Agreement establishes a penalty which is to be charged by the Port Authority of $5,000 (in June 1981 dollars) for each violation.
The TPA is obliged to charge this penalty for all breaches to date.
C - Noise Contours:
       NEF = Noise Exposure Forecast Contours are described by a map and clearly defined (in terms that lawyers and noise experts understand) in the Tripartite Agreement. The purpose of these sections is to protect the community from increasing levels of noise as the number of aircraft using the Island Airport increases.

Section 34 of the Tripartite Agreement, outlines the process by which the City is to be provided with regular NEF Contour studies. This gives the City the right to obtain from the Minister of Transport each year in which there is a growth in traffic through the airport, the current NEF contours prepared using actual data.
Looking at Transport Canada’s website, there’s a summary of how it goes about an NEF study, at: http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/publications/tp1247/part4/Part4-1.htm
The City is in a strong position to request up to date Noise Contour studies.
In Summary: What constitutes a Noise Violation?
A) The Hours of Operation  - 6:45 am - 11:00 pm  (curfew).
ANY flight outside of these hours!  (Departing Medivac Helicopters are exempt)
 
The Tripartite identifies the Limits on Noise allowable on Take off and Landing for planes over 5700 kg.
The ICAO measurement of the Q400 gives us the levels of noise and they do not fit into the allowable noise levels as defined by the Tripartite Agreement. AND yes the Q400 is in violation and for every landing of that plane the TPA should be fining them $5,000.00.
 Thus every landing of the Q400 is in violation of the Tripartite Agreement!
 
C) There are extensive definitions of the Noise Contours as identified under the NEF Contours section of the Tripartite Agreement.
        - This requires that the Gov't take the measurements.
        - These measurements have likely not been done for a very long time and that the CITY should be requesting that these measurements are taken and a report be done.
We need to be demanding these studies be done and that they be made public!

D) Anytime that an aircraft noise disrupts your life, waking you; making it impossible to carry on a conversation; requiring the closure of windows to enjoy music in your home; are all appropriate examples for making a complaint to the TPA system. (See below)

WHAT CAN WE DO:

1) Log Complaints with the TPA on line form:
http://www.torontoport.com/Airport_Cform.asp   Tick the box requesting a copy be sent to you.
Or call: Noise Management Office at 416-203-8490

2) Send a copy of your complaint to:
Mayor David Miller mayor_miller@toronto.ca  phone: 416-397-2489
Councillor Adam Vaughan councillor_vaughan@toronto.ca phone: 416-392-4044
Councillor Pam McConnell councillor_mcconnell@toronto.ca phone: 416-392-7916
Minister of Transportation Cannon.L@parl.gc.ca   phone: 1-613-992-5516
Chair of Toronto Port Authority Board  mmcqueen@wellingtonfund.com 
 

In 2006, the port authority took in $1,182,000 on their airport operations and spent $4,686,000 to generate that revenue.  Their loss on the airport that year was $3,504,000.

In 2007, airport revenues reached $5,119,000.  That year the port authority spent $6,478,000 to end up with another loss.  The 2007 loss was $1,359,000.

But the airport wasn’t supposed to lose money once the new improved passenger infrastructure was in place and new tenant, Porter Airlines, started its refined flying service.

Why not?

The federal government’s liability settlement over the fixed link cancellation in 2004, stated that REGCO, Porter Airline’s parent company, was to cover the airport’s losses plus 25% of the airport’s operating costs or approximately $1.2 million a year. 

John Barber’s column, "Ottawa handed out $20-million to Island airline boss" posted 27/09/06 in the Globe and Mail, cites a confidential Ministry of Public Works memo that confirms the obligation.  His column states, “The memo reveals that the agency expected Mr. Deluce to pay landing fees sufficient to cover the airport's annual operating losses as well as 25 per cent of the TPA's administrative costs.” 

Yet, the airport lost money last year even with Porter covering the annual operating loss and paying 25% of the administrative costs.

How is that possible under the terms of the federal government’s liability settlement agreement?

The probability that Porter did not meet its obligations is highly unlikely since the airline claims it is doing remarkably well.

On June 9, 2007, Robert Deluce, Porter Airlines president was cited in the Globe and Mail claiming that the company turned a profit in May, 2007.

Then a year later, on June 25, 2008, an article on www.Carrentals.co.uk stated that the airline “is reportedly close to becoming profitable” and “that Porter will turn its first profits later this summer.”

Clearly, a company that turns a profit for the first time for two years in a row is able to meet its obligations.

While the Toronto Port Authority’s 2007 Financial Statements don’t record the Porter payments as separate entities, Note 14 of the TPA 2007 Financial Statements do say that the airport collected $1,983,000 in airport improvement fees.

At $15 per departing passenger, the total represents a passenger count of 132,200 passengers departing the airport in 2007.

Assuming that the lion’s share flew on Porter planes and Porter flew approximately 5,000 outbound flights to Ottawa and Montreal in 2007 based on its December schedule for both destinations, Porter flights averaged about 27 passengers or about a 38% average load.

As Mr. Deluce noted in the Globe’s June 9, 2007 article, it is possible to make a profit if Porter fills 30% of its seats. 

Bombardier, the manufacturer of Porter’s Q400 planes, claims that an airline will break even on direct costs with a 35% load with an average seat price at $100 U.S. and fuel at $2.50 U.S. a gallon.

Last week fuel went for $4.30 a gallon and this week Porter was still offering sub-$100 seat prices from Toronto to Ottawa, Montreal and Newark.

Nevertheless, we have Porter’s word that it is making a profit.  It’s just that its payments to the port authority aren’t showing up on the financial statements.  Why is that?

Bob Kotyk