The $500 million is a great deal of cost, but...
A great deal of cost indeed. To be fair though, if Canada had not financed the aircraft sale creating, creating Canadian Jobs, Porter would almost have certainly bought aircraft from ATR instead. It would not have helped them get into business, instead of EDC financing the transaction it would likely be Italy, France, or the EU. Porter would have expanded regardless. And the ATR 72 would likely have been the choice. It isn't quite as fast, and does not fly quite as far. But it would still be reasonably competitive on the short haul destinations. Essentially it has smaller fuel tanks, and that is more or less the only difference. The Q400 weighs more on account of a larger engine.
It is almost unheard of for an airplane to be sold with out financing from the country in which it is produced.
Also the aircraft is physically unaltered for 500 NM range. The range of a Q400 is 1,362 NM. Fueling for 500 NM you need 1,134 m of runway, as a recommended base. At TCCA you have almost 100 m more than that. (The plane always lifts off before that because it includes a margin.) Thus it isn't unreasonable to fly the plane 600-700 NM out of that airport. (Keeping in mind that as is standard procedure in aviation the 700 NM is how far the rout may be, the plane probably has enough fuel for 800.)
And if you want further proof that it is standard practice look no further than WestJet. They are doing just this to stretch the fuel burn for flights to Honolulu.
At most the airport is annoying. The Absence of air traffic control is not inherently unsafe, nothing happened in Fort McMurray despite all of the traffic.
The key to your goal is lower rents/landing fees at Pearson. Lower the landing fees dramatically. I cant find the article, I tried, but it costs something like 3X more to land a Q400 at Pearson. Suffice to say that would alter the economics of the situation completely. A lot of people fly to City Centre because its cheaper. And that is one of the major reasons. Add a rail link from Pearson and the TPA wouldnt be able to keep this airport in business. The GTAA is not held harmless in this issue, in fact years of business at usual at the GTAA played a big role in making the Island Airport a viable business again. It could not sustain an airline in times past.
Adam
It is almost unheard of for an airplane to be sold with out financing from the country in which it is produced.
Also the aircraft is physically unaltered for 500 NM range. The range of a Q400 is 1,362 NM. Fueling for 500 NM you need 1,134 m of runway, as a recommended base. At TCCA you have almost 100 m more than that. (The plane always lifts off before that because it includes a margin.) Thus it isn't unreasonable to fly the plane 600-700 NM out of that airport. (Keeping in mind that as is standard procedure in aviation the 700 NM is how far the rout may be, the plane probably has enough fuel for 800.)
And if you want further proof that it is standard practice look no further than WestJet. They are doing just this to stretch the fuel burn for flights to Honolulu.
At most the airport is annoying. The Absence of air traffic control is not inherently unsafe, nothing happened in Fort McMurray despite all of the traffic.
The key to your goal is lower rents/landing fees at Pearson. Lower the landing fees dramatically. I cant find the article, I tried, but it costs something like 3X more to land a Q400 at Pearson. Suffice to say that would alter the economics of the situation completely. A lot of people fly to City Centre because its cheaper. And that is one of the major reasons. Add a rail link from Pearson and the TPA wouldnt be able to keep this airport in business. The GTAA is not held harmless in this issue, in fact years of business at usual at the GTAA played a big role in making the Island Airport a viable business again. It could not sustain an airline in times past.
Adam
Comments