Porter’s CEO is fond of saying his Q400 is 30-40% more fuel efficient – just last week he was quoted (at http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/left-field/2009/02/porter-probably-placing-more-q.html) praising “the turboprop's operating efficiencies, saying that its 30%-40% fuel advantage over jets enabled Porter "to avoid costly fuel hedges."

 A while ago, I found support, using Bombardier’s numbers, for something like a 15% saving.

 But we’ve also found this site: http://www.flybe.com/pdf/eco_labels_make_own.pdf that uses ICAO emissions data – ICAO is the UN-affiliated aviation organization, and therefore highly reliable..

 It’s most interesting: while, for takeoff and landing emissions, which correlate with fuel consumption, the Q400 is just as bad as its competitors for CO2 emissions on a passenger seat basis:

 For a 500km flight (which is the limit for Porter’s Q400, given the very short runway at the Island Airport)  its CO2 emissions – 42 - are just the same as comparable jets – the Airbus 319 – 40 - and the Boeing 737 - 42:

 The problem for Porter is, that given the recent admissions by TPA Board chair Mark McQueen and Airport Manager Ken Lundy as to the number of passengers per month (45 to 50K), their load factor is less than 50%. Air Canada’s load factors on its flights are closer to 80% (http://micro.newswire.ca/release.cgi?rkey=1702045531&view=13213-0&Start=0).

 All those empty seats increases the CO2 emissions, on a per passenger basis by 60%.

 From a climate change perspective, flying Porter is far worse than flying jets out of Pearson

Brian Iler, Chair, CommunityAIR