Hi Gem,

I've seen cars, SUVs, taxis, buses and limos idling in front of Union Station as well. By your logic, does that mean that the train station has a pretty damn big carbon footprint as well? If idling is illegal, then the police should ticket every one of them ten times til they get the message. If speeding down Lower Bathurst or any street is illegal, then the police should ticket those people till they figure it out. My point was that the Island airport is very close to downtown and there is NO WAY there is more carbon emission on a trip from University Avenue to the Island Airport compared to Pearson. Given that Porter carried the bulk of their 912,613 passengers (2009) through the Island airport (compared to 448,783 in 2008) that equates to many less highway trips as many (ALL?) of those people used to use Pearson.

Also, for those who have read the IPO, you may not have noticed that Porter has posted EBITDA profitability for every fiscal year except 2007 - (EBITDA) Earnings before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization.

Here's an article that I'm sure Mr. Kotyk will enjoy. It is chock full of revenue information about Porter and covers many of the load + yield issues we discussed weeks ago.

http://www.centreforaviation.com/news/2010/04/30/porter-airlines-ipo-document-reveals-red-ink-but-management-sees-lots-of-blue-sky/page1

For those who point to Porter's 47.9% 2009 load factor, here's some perspective. Over the course of 1 year, Porter's fleet has gone from 8 to 18 aircraft. During this period, Porter's Available seat miles (ASM) went from 257M to 655M. ASM is a measure of an airline's passenger carrying capacity. It is equal to the number of seats available multiplied by the number of miles flown. EG: an aircraft with 70 seats flying 100 miles would give the carrier 7,000 ASMs for that flight.

So, in 1 year, while Porter more than doubled their available seats, their 2008 load factor was 52% compared to 47.9% in 2009. Do the math - 52% of 257 million is a LOT less than 47.9% of 655 Million. And while the Dash 8-400 is an efficient aircraft, there is no doubt that it would be even better if 100% full but that is not realistic.
Just as it is not realistic to make claims about the efficiency of an aircraft - based on load factors - when that airline has more than doubled their available seats in just ONE YEAR.

All this is meant as perspective. I don't work for Porter and have never flown on Porter. I have never said that the Dash 8-400 OR aviation in general is EXCELLENT for the environment and that everyone should fly. I think most people get that airplanes make noise and pollute but so much of the argument is subjective that it is impossible to be definitive. Many people, despite the downside of aviation, are content to live near airports. For 13 years I lived under the flightpath of the busiest runway at Pearson. I moved away 1 year ago and I still miss the old neighborhood.

Take Care
Joe