Wildly successful? or Wildly exaggerated?
Joe, thanks for the insight into the airline industry that your answers provide.
For the record I apologize for misrepresenting your characterization of Porter as wildly successful. Indeed, you did not say that they are wildly successful.
I would appreciate clarification of something you wrote.
“Even with a meagre 18% load figure to Chicago, Porter is within hundreds of dollars per flight of making a profit as higher yields and loads on other routes are subsidizing the Chicago operation.”
I’m not sure what you mean by this.
When you say within hundreds of dollars per flight of making a profit, are you referring to indirect costs? If so, is there a percentage figure that can be applied to direct costs to determine indirect costs? For example, according to Wikipedia, the breakeven load factor (belf) is 55% for the Q-400s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Dash_8
Do we assume this includes indirect costs? If so, how is an 18% load
within hundreds of dollars per flight of making a profit?
In response to your statement, “However, it bears acknowledgment that there is an obvious market at the TCCA as a 2010 projection of 1.3 million customers must also mean something”, I would acknowledge that there is an obvious market at the Billy Bishop Toronto Centre Airport. After all, the airport had 400,000 passengers in 1987, some 23 years ago.
However, I wouldn’t necessarily acknowledge the credibility of an assessment of 1.3 million passengers for 2010. Based on the TPA’s last publicly available figures, their 2008 Financial Statements, the airport serviced approximately 517,000 passengers. By claiming 1.3 million passengers, they are asking us to believe that they will experience a 250% increase by the end of 2010, a 2 ½ times jump in two years.
Other than two weekly seasonal flights to Myrtle Beach and a daily flight to Sudbury scheduled to start on March 31st no new destinations or carriers that would generate additional passengers have been announced.
At the end of 2008 when the airport serviced 517,000 passengers, the airport’s major carrier flew 10 aircraft to seven destinations from the island. By the end of 2009, Porter was flying 15 aircraft to nine destinations from the island, adding Thunder Bay and Boston. It is difficult, therefore, to see where a 2 ½ times increase will come from.
Two years ago, 517,000 passengers used the airport. The projected 1.3 passengers for 2010 means 780,000 extra passengers will use the airport by the end of this year. Either Porter is wildly successful or the numbers are wildly exaggerated.
Bob Kotyk
For the record I apologize for misrepresenting your characterization of Porter as wildly successful. Indeed, you did not say that they are wildly successful.
I would appreciate clarification of something you wrote.
“Even with a meagre 18% load figure to Chicago, Porter is within hundreds of dollars per flight of making a profit as higher yields and loads on other routes are subsidizing the Chicago operation.”
I’m not sure what you mean by this.
When you say within hundreds of dollars per flight of making a profit, are you referring to indirect costs? If so, is there a percentage figure that can be applied to direct costs to determine indirect costs? For example, according to Wikipedia, the breakeven load factor (belf) is 55% for the Q-400s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
In response to your statement, “However, it bears acknowledgment that there is an obvious market at the TCCA as a 2010 projection of 1.3 million customers must also mean something”, I would acknowledge that there is an obvious market at the Billy Bishop Toronto Centre Airport. After all, the airport had 400,000 passengers in 1987, some 23 years ago.
However, I wouldn’t necessarily acknowledge the credibility of an assessment of 1.3 million passengers for 2010. Based on the TPA’s last publicly available figures, their 2008 Financial Statements, the airport serviced approximately 517,000 passengers. By claiming 1.3 million passengers, they are asking us to believe that they will experience a 250% increase by the end of 2010, a 2 ½ times jump in two years.
Other than two weekly seasonal flights to Myrtle Beach and a daily flight to Sudbury scheduled to start on March 31st no new destinations or carriers that would generate additional passengers have been announced.
At the end of 2008 when the airport serviced 517,000 passengers, the airport’s major carrier flew 10 aircraft to seven destinations from the island. By the end of 2009, Porter was flying 15 aircraft to nine destinations from the island, adding Thunder Bay and Boston. It is difficult, therefore, to see where a 2 ½ times increase will come from.
Two years ago, 517,000 passengers used the airport. The projected 1.3 passengers for 2010 means 780,000 extra passengers will use the airport by the end of this year. Either Porter is wildly successful or the numbers are wildly exaggerated.
Bob Kotyk
Comments