Why the Dash 8 and Q400 are permitted
Joe -
Part of the answer on the quesiton of why the Dash-8 100 and 200 were permitted is, I believe, due to the fact that the Dash-8 is specificaly permitted to fly by the 1985 amendment - for general aviation purposes.
At that point, the only Dash-8s in existence were the When the Dash 8 was added to the Tripartite Agreement as a permitted aircraft (for “general aviation” purposes) in 1985, the only Dash 8 plane that could have been in the contemplation of the parties was the Series 100/200 – a 37 to 40passenger plane – about half the capacity, and about 60% of the weight of the Q400 , which was developed in the 1990s, and has very different performance characteristics .
What governs is what was in the minds of the parties to the agreemnt at the time it was signed.
Would the parties at that time have considered a plane with twice the capacity to be a Dash-8? Very likely not.
The other part of the answer, we think, is that the TPA had a strong interest in ignoring the tripartite agreement constraints to keep the airport operating, and was able to count on the City, which is the only entity entitled to enforce the agreement - and which has been surprisingly and distressingly reluctant to take appropriate steps to enforce it.
The TPA and Porter have been able to count upon the right of Council - Minnan-Wong and Ootes in particular - and the apparent pressure placed on David Miller by the Harper Tories to shut up about the TPA and the Airport in return for federal funds.
The more Porter and the TPA push the City, as they clearly are here on the slots limit, the more likely it will be that the City finally finds some backbone and takes the necessary steps to commence enforcement proceedings.
It's ultimately a rather flimsy foundation for Porter's operation at the Island Airport - and for all that investment.
We cannot think of an alternative explanation - and we've certainly asked the TPA and Porter for one.
None have been put forward.
Averaging of the three noise parameters to reach compliance would have had to be specifically mentioned in the tripartite agrement to be available to justify its use. It's not.
We think a simple application to a judge to determine what the tripartite agreement means on these issues is the best way to resolve them.
Without a determinative court decision, no one can say with certainty whethre the Q400 is permitted - or not.
We have a strong sense that a court will come down on the side of community protection - with the caveat that the City's dithering on taking enforcement proceedings could lead a judge to sympathize with the TPA and Porter notwithstanding a strong legal case.
Brian Iler, chair
CommunityAIR
Part of the answer on the quesiton of why the Dash-8 100 and 200 were permitted is, I believe, due to the fact that the Dash-8 is specificaly permitted to fly by the 1985 amendment - for general aviation purposes.
At that point, the only Dash-8s in existence were the When the Dash 8 was added to the Tripartite Agreement as a permitted aircraft (for “general aviation” purposes) in 1985, the only Dash 8 plane that could have been in the contemplation of the parties was the Series 100/200 – a 37 to 40passenger plane – about half the capacity, and about 60% of the weight of the Q400 , which was developed in the 1990s, and has very different performance characteristics .
What governs is what was in the minds of the parties to the agreemnt at the time it was signed.
Would the parties at that time have considered a plane with twice the capacity to be a Dash-8? Very likely not.
The other part of the answer, we think, is that the TPA had a strong interest in ignoring the tripartite agreement constraints to keep the airport operating, and was able to count on the City, which is the only entity entitled to enforce the agreement - and which has been surprisingly and distressingly reluctant to take appropriate steps to enforce it.
The TPA and Porter have been able to count upon the right of Council - Minnan-Wong and Ootes in particular - and the apparent pressure placed on David Miller by the Harper Tories to shut up about the TPA and the Airport in return for federal funds.
The more Porter and the TPA push the City, as they clearly are here on the slots limit, the more likely it will be that the City finally finds some backbone and takes the necessary steps to commence enforcement proceedings.
It's ultimately a rather flimsy foundation for Porter's operation at the Island Airport - and for all that investment.
We cannot think of an alternative explanation - and we've certainly asked the TPA and Porter for one.
None have been put forward.
Averaging of the three noise parameters to reach compliance would have had to be specifically mentioned in the tripartite agrement to be available to justify its use. It's not.
We think a simple application to a judge to determine what the tripartite agreement means on these issues is the best way to resolve them.
Without a determinative court decision, no one can say with certainty whethre the Q400 is permitted - or not.
We have a strong sense that a court will come down on the side of community protection - with the caveat that the City's dithering on taking enforcement proceedings could lead a judge to sympathize with the TPA and Porter notwithstanding a strong legal case.
Brian Iler, chair
CommunityAIR
Comments