CommunityAIR

Refuting the TPA's Myths & Facts, #2

Community Air — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 17:35:00 GMT

The first item in this series looked at the admissibility of the Q400 as a permissible aircraft at the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport (BBTCA) based on the provisions of the 1983 Tripartite Agreement (Agreement) and the 1985 amendment. This instalment also references the Agreement, within the context of the level of commercial service allowable.

The TPA version

Fact: The 1983 Tripartite Agreement sets out the rules, restrictions and protocols for aircraft activity and commercial service at BBTCA. Not only that, but the BBTCA hosted three different commercial carriers throughout the 1980s and 1990s.

The CommunityAIR Version

The TPA is correct. The 1983 Tripartite Agreement sets out the rules, restrictions and protocols for aircraft activity and commercial service at BBTCA. The Toronto Port Authority’s statement is a response to CommunityAIR’s claim that the airport was never intended to be an active commercial airport.

Sections of the Tripartite Agreement prohibit use of the airport for any purpose except “general aviation” and “limited commercial STOL service operations” and operations ancillary to those uses. They define limited commercial STOL service as a service using short takeoff and landing (STOL) aircraft, for hire, or reward, in an operation duly licensed by the Air Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission, and operating in a manner compatible with the specified capacity and capability of the airport facilities provided and in accordance with the conditions of Section 14.”

Section 14 is key. It requires the TPA to regulate the frequency of aircraft movements within an NEF contour or noise containment area. The NEF contour is a line enveloping an area surrounding the airport. Its position and relationship to the surrounding area is determined by a modeling formula based on factors such as the various kinds of aircraft flown and their frequency, the numbers of helicopter take-offs and landings, the number of night flights, etc. Once the NEF contour is established, the TPA knows what level of activity is permissible.

The NEF contour model gives the airport operator scheduling choices as to the kinds of aircraft and their purposes. For example, if helicopters flying at night account for a certain amount of activity that reduces the number of commercial airline flights, the operator has the flexibility to reduce the number of helicopter flights in order to increase the number of commercial flights as long as the total number of movements stays within the NEF contour.

Commercial airline activity, the number of take-offs and landings, are referred to as slots. Each take-off is a slot as is each landing. Thus 212 slots can mean 106 take-offs and 106 landings.

The TPA claims 212 slots available for commercial service under the NEF are allowable by the Agreement. They base their claim on work done by their consultant. However, the earliest verifiable number seen by CommunityAIR is contained in a July 21, 1998 Transport Canada memo that sets the number of slots available for commercial service at 97.

Defying credibility, the TPA continues to argue that doubling Transport Canada’s 97 to the TPA consultant’s 212 slots does not expand the airport into an active commercial airport.

As for the observation that the airport hosted three different commercial carriers throughout the 1980s and 1990s, a look at the numbers available proves CommunityAIR’s point that the TPA is expanding the airport into an active commercial airport.

In 1982, City Centre Airways started the first airline service using the Dash 7. Their presence at the airport was the catalyst for the Tripartite Agreement. Under pressure by the federal provincial and regional (Metro) governments to develop the airport for commercial purposes, City Council wanted to keep the airport a manageable mix of general and limited commercial traffic.

Starting in November 1983 with the purchase of Air Atonabee, mainly for its licence to fly from the airport to Ottawa, City Express soon came into being. In 1987, passenger traffic peaked at 400,000.

In 1989, City Council looked for a way to stop the airport operator’s plans to triple the number of flights, from 42 to 112. Council suggested that the airport operators cap the number of flights at 90 per day. Air Ontario, the third commercial carrier in the 1980s and 1990s was included in the airport plans. Air Ontario, a private company, owned 75 per cent by Air Canada and 25 per cent by the Deluce family, announced that they would begin service in April 1990.

Today, the TPA claims that the airport will handle somewhere north of 1.3 million passengers and plans to allow 212 flights. The 1.3 million passengers is three times the previous peak number set in 1987. The 212 slots are over double the City Council cap of 90 and Transport Canada’s 97.

Perhaps the TPA can explain why these greatly increased numbers don’t point to an active commercial airport, especially since they won’t reveal the details explaining how they arrived at 212 slots.

Bob Kotyk

Toronto Islands in danger

Community Air — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 04:01:00 GMT

It has been almost entirely through long-time Toronto residents’ efforts for over a decade that the Toronto Islands have been preserved as accessible only by ferry. Throughout a succession of ‘outside’ politicians, incessant lobbyists/developers dream-schemes, and TPA expanded airport promotion, the Islands have remained relatively untouched, protected only by the fierce intervention of citizens. The defeat of Toronto Mayoralty candidates has even been influenced by this issue. Federal politicians have reneged on promises to follow the desire of voters..

In addition to being unique as part of (and yet a haven from) both heavily populated and huge commercial areas of the Province’s capitol city, the charm of being accessible only by water has been vastly under-rated. The sheer novelty amuses and delights tourists. They throng on the ferry decks and the Islands shores to take pictures of the Toronto skyline. There is absolutely no other comparable way to capture that view at any time of the day or season of the year, as professional photographers constantly demonstrate. Visitors marvel at the swarms of small sailboats in the harbour. They delight in the absence of extreme Disney-type of commercialism in the entertainment area, where families can spend an entire fun-filled day without feeling gouged and let down. It is an utterly fascinating anachronism in big-city life.

Its very existence is imperiled by the TPA and Porter Airlines! They have mounted an incessant, unremitting PR campaign for 10 years! Once again, they are promoting a fixed link to the airport, PLUS a perimeter road! They have not learned that NO means NO. Toronto citizens do not want fixed access OR an expanded airport.

In 2002, former Mayor David Crombie and urban advocate Jane Jacobs joined forces with environmentalists, architects, concerned Toronto citizens and waterfront residents to oppose airport expansion as endangering safety and quality of life. Why has the TPA, with the assistance of the Federal Government, encouraged unwanted and unnecessary expansion of an airport that has always existed mainly as a semi-private shuttle for an elite downtown niche market of well-heeled businessmen, lobbyists and government employees? Pearson is far more practical for anyone traveling from other city areas.

I truly believe that the existence of Toronto Islands as a heritage and green oasis is in peril. At the very least, the question of greatly expanded airport and pedestrian tunnel plus a perimeter road should be included on the ballot for the next municipal election. Since there is a Tripartite Agreement, perhaps provincial and federal politicians should be involved. Meanwhile, the TPA should be ordered immediately by the federal government to put a hold on all further TPA/Island plans and purchases in order to prevent another premature and costly fiasco like the bridge scandal.

Shirley Bush,

Refuting the TPA's Myths & Facts, #1

Community Air — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 04:13:00 GMT

On March 5, CommunityAIR’s Brian Iler posted a response tothe Toronto Port Authority’s CEO Geoffrey Wilson. In an earlier email, Mr. Wilson charged thatCommunityAIR is spreading myths and factually incorrect information about theTPA’s airport operations. Mr. Iler’sresponse may be read here. http://blog.communityair.org/2010/03/05/response-to-the-tpas-myths.aspx

In the original email exchange between Mr. Iler and Mr.Wilson, Mr. Wilson attached a letter that appears was intended for posting onthe TPA website. The letter contained aMyth/Fact section refuting CommunityAIR claims. The letter also contained the following, “I think we are both aware thatmany recent allegations made on the CommunityAIR blog are not factuallycorrect, and in our opinion, designed to mislead media and citizens.”

Mr. Iler responded, “You statethat a number of statements made on the CommunityAIR blog are factuallyincorrect, implying that I and our organization do not care about truth. Thatis untrue and defamatory.” Mr.Wilson’s letter did not appear on the TPA website but the TPA’s list of mythsand facts did.

An examination of the first of the TPA’s facts follows.

The TPA version

Fact: Non-STOL aircraft can use the BBTCA, according toamendment of the Tripartite Agreement in 1985, provided they are approved byTransport Canada and the Canadian Transportation Agency. The Bombardier Q400used by Porter Airlines at BBTCA is a Non-STOL aircraft and has received suchapprovals.

Furthermore, commercial jet aircraft are prohibited fromusing the BBTCA under the Tripartite Agreement (the agreement governing theoperational parameters of the BBTCA signed by the TPA, federal government andthe City of Toronto).

CommunityAIR’s position

The Tripartite Agreement (Agreement) is a contract signed bythree parties: The City of Toronto; Transport Canada; The Toronto PortAuthority. The Agreement allows forgeneral aviation and limited commercial STOL service operations. Each signatory is legally bound by thedocument. The Agreement was signed in1983.

Priorto 1983, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners ran the airport until its 21-yearlease ran out. Senior levels ofgovernment wanted a STOL operation out of the airport and City Council agreedto a limited level of commercial service as detailed in the Agreement. In 1999, the newly instituted Toronto PortAuthority took over all the Toronto Harbour Commissioners rights andobligations.

CityCentre Airways received an air operator licence for a Dash 7 service betweenToronto, Ottawa and Montreal in 1982.

In1985, the Agreement was amended to allow the Dash 8. The Dash 8 at the time of the amendment wasthe 100 series, which carried 37-39passengers. The first Dash 8-100 series plane flew on June 20,1983. It entered airline service in 1984with NorOntair. It was the only Dash 8in existence at the time of the amendment. It is CommunityAIR’s position that the Dash 8-100 series is the onlyDash 8 allowed under the amendment and agreement.

Clearly, the TPA and Transport Canada doesnot agree. They believe the 1985amendment allows for any aircraft certified as a Dash 8 to use the airport fora limited commercial STOL service. It ison this basis that they argue the Q400 is admissible at the airport. Transport Canada’s position is that becausethe Q400 is a derivative of the Dash 8 and because Transport Canada and theCanadian Transportation Agency haveapproved it as such, it is admissible.

The facts that the Q400 is not a STOLaircraft by former Transport Minister’s own admission and that it is far largerand heavier than the Dash 8-100 series and that it has nearly twice thepassenger capacity and that it didn’t exist in 1985 don’t seem to matter.

It is almost as if Transport Canada andthe TPA are saying that the Q400 is admissible because we say it is and we backour claim on a technicality.

As for the TPA’s statement that the TripartiteAgreement prohibits the use of commercial jet aircraft, no one isdisputing it and their reasons for including the obvious are baffling.

Because theTripartite Agreement is a legal document, it would take a legal opinion to sortthe matter out. CommunityAIR isnot a signatory to the agreement so can not challenge Transport Canada’s andthe TPA’s claim in court. The City ofToronto is a signatory. Unfortunately,for whatever reason, they have chosen not to protect their interests and thefuture of Toronto’s waterfront through a court ruling.

Bob Kotyk

De icing Fluid Discharge, the Island Airport and the TPA

Community Air — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 04:08:00 GMT

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson,President and CEO, Toronto Port Authority (TPA), in a March 10 email, tookissue with CommunityAIR’s Brian Iler’s observation that the TPA was in breachof Section 20 of the Tripartite Agreement.

DRAINAGE AND DISCHARGE OF MATERIAL

20. The Lesseeshall not discharge, cause or permit to be discharged or

howsoever to pass into the sewer systems, storm drainsor surface drainage facilities at the demised premises, if any, or elsewhereany noxious, contaminated or poisonous substances; it being expresslyunderstood and agreed that in the event of a discharge or escape from thedemised premises of such noxious, contaminated or poisonous substances in andunder the control of the Lessee, the Lessee shall be responsible to clean up tothe satisfaction of the Lessor al no cost to the Lessor.

Mr. Wilson wrote, “I'm afraid your assertion about breaches of theTripartite below (Section 20) is rather incorrect.” Before examining Mr. Wilson’s argumentthat the TPA handles de-icing contaminants in a way that does not contraveneSection 20, a little background is in order.

On March 21, 2002, Dr. Sheila Brasur tabled a staff reportfor the Toronto Board of Health, Management of De-icing Activities at Toronto Lester B. PearsonInternational.

http://www.toronto.ca/health/hphe/pdf/deicingactivities.pdf The report is an update on the measures thatthe Greater Toronto Airport Authority (GTAA) took at Pearson to mitigate thehealth and environmental effects of de-icing fluids discharged into thesanitary sewer system.

The report touches on the composition of the de-icing fluidsand their contaminating effects.

“The activecomponent of aircraft de-icing or anti-icing fluids is ethylene glycol orpropylene glycol. Ethylene glycol is the active component in aircraft de-icingor anti-icing fluids used at Toronto Pearson International Airport. Althoughits toxicity is relatively low and it breaks down readily in the environment,rapid loading of large volumes of de-icing fluids into the surface water bodiescan lead to oxygen depletion, threatening the survival of aquatic life. Ethyleneglycol-based de-icing products are about 3-10 times more toxic to aquaticorganisms than pure ethylene glycol due to the presence of small amounts (about1%) of additives in the formulations. One of these is tolyltriazole, which functions as a corrosion inhibitorand a flame retardant.”

Clearly,untreated de-icing fluids are ‘noxious, contaminated or poisonous substances’.

Pearsonopened their Central De-Icing Facility (CDF) in 1998 and expanded it in1999/2000. The facility’s purpose is tominimize the release ofcontaminants to the surrounding waterways. It does so by minimizingethylene glycol consumption and spillage as well as collecting, treating andsafely disposing of the chemical.

Usinga series of containment tanks and strict analysis, the CDF ensures that the Canadian Environmental ProtectionAct (CEPA) Part IV effluent guideline of 100 mg/L (i.e. 0.01%) at airports ismet before any discharge enters stormsewers.

As MsBrasur’s report points out, the GTAA conducts an annual review of its de-icingoperations and based on the findings endeavours to improve its operations andstormwater management plans. The Compliance Manager for theOntario Clean Water Agency visits the facility weekly and is on 24-hour call totrouble shoot. The GTAA also allows Toronto Public Health to examineits facility.

TheToronto Port Authority’s de-icing contaminant procedures are not quite asdetailed. The Authority’s website http://www.torontoport.com/PortAuthority/airport_facts.aspoffers this description. “TCCA has had a water sampling and mitigationprogramme in place since 1992. All storm water discharged into Lake Ontario isclosely monitored and tested. TCCA has created a new Glycol Containment Areawhere the run-off goes directly into storm sewers connected to Metro TorontoSanitary Sewage Network.”

Anothersource, the TPA’s consultant, Dillon Consulting Limited, wrote, “The Aircraftde-icing is carried out within specified areas of the terminal ramp wheresurface runoff is directed to a glycol collection system. This system ensuresthat there is no discharge to the surrounding water areas. The glycol/watermixture is discharged via the Metropolitan Toronto Sanitary Sewer system fortreatment.” Source: Proposed Fixed Link Bridge to the TCCA, Final Ea Screening Report, P.45 Appendix A, Toronto Port Authority, August, 2003.

Mr. Wilson’s March 10, 2010 email doesn’t shed much more light on thematter. He wrote, “The removal of deicing fluid does not enterthe sewer system. Thisliquid waste or deicing fluid is collected through a series of catch basins onthe main apron which is separate from the storm water drainage sewers anddischarge areas. From thecatch basin, the drainage flows to the Island’s sanitary treatment facility asper the Tripartite Agreement. Sampling and analysis is conducted in order to confirm compliance withapplicable Sewer Use By-Laws.”

There areproblems with either Mr. Wilson’s understanding of the TPA’s handling of thede-icing fluid or with the TPA’s mitigating measures themselves.

For onething, there is no Island sanitary treatment facility. By Mr. Wilson’s admission, the TPA is dumpingthe liquid waste into the sanitary sewer system. It flows into the Ashbridges Bay facility.

Foranother thing, although the airport’s discharge is sampled and analyzed, thereis no indication that it is recycled or treated to meet the CEPA guideline,applicable sewer use bylaws notwithstanding.

Incomparing the available information on the treatment of de-icing fluid at thetwo airports, we can readily see that the GTAA has a transparent,sophisticated, effective process that invites outside scrutiny. On the other hand, the TPA’s process remainslittle known or understood and depends on insiders and second party sources todescribe its basic workings.

We candraw a parallel between the TPA’s openness on its treatment of de-icing fluidand on its position on the number of slots available for commercial air carriersusing the airport. In both cases itappears to be, ‘trust us; our consultants assure us that what we say willfly’. As long as the TPA operates in thesame secretive manner, it will be open to charges that it’s contravening theTripartite Agreement.

In the case of de-icing fluidentering the sewer system, the TPA’s word is not good enough. The TPA must open its doors to Toronto PublicHealth and the Ontario Clean Water Agency.

Bob Kotyk

Curfew Wording

Community Air — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 04:05:00 GMT

Hello All,

Thanks for the text of the curfew in the tripartite agreement as provided by Mr. Iler. It specifically states "flights" and doesn't refer to taxiing or even starting engines.

If the intent was to be as strict as "SKYWATCHER's" curfew interpretation, then the curfew should have been worded like the one in Santa Monica California where over 150000 people live within 3.2 km of the airport.

http://www.smgov.net/departments/airport/content.aspx?id=9005

Santa Monica Municipal Code 10.04.04.080 part b) states:

b). No aircraft shall be started, run-up or depart the Airport between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Mondays through Fridays nor between 11:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Saturdays and Sundays, except in case of bona fide medical or public safety emergency, with the consent of the Airport Director or, in his or her absence, the Watch Commander of the Police Department.

As you can see, this curfew explicitly restricts taxiing since they aren't even allowed to start engines prior to 0700. Precedent and past practices at the Island, notwithstanding blatant late arrivals, has been to allow taxiing during curfew hours. NOISY Engine maintenance also takes place overnight because the curfew only appears to restrict "flying" or put another way "RUNWAY" operations (i.e. landing and taking off). I agree that engine maintenance is as loud as a departing aircraft but there is no specific restriction banning it during curfew.

The Santa Monica Municipal Code is very explicit and I think CAIR should approach the TPA to include the same restrictions in the Island Airport curfew. As Porter's schedule expands to more destinations, they will be under pressure to compete with carriers from Pearson that can depart much sooner to the same airports and, as a result, will probably schedule more early departures as well as late evening arrivals.

This brings up another related point that Mr. Iler alluded to. It is his opinion that "the curfew wording would be interpreted by a judge to reflect its intended purpose." In the past, the ICAO noise averaging methodology and status of the Q400 as a DASH-8 have also been mentioned as items a judge would (could) interpret differently than the TPA. With these three issues in mind, has CAIR sought a legal and binding interpretation of these important issues OR what is preventing this from taking place?

Take Care!
Joe

A "very fair" settlement? How about "obscene"?!!

Community Air — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 00:55:00 GMT

From Precedent: The new rules of style and law:

http://www.lawandstyle.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=308&Itemid=100&limit=1&limitstart=2

"One of those registered lobbyists is … Liberal Lorna Counsell. She’s a former special assistant to New Brunswick Premier Frank McKenna, and is on the record for her client Porter Airlines, a young company fighting through the red tape to get its commuter planes flying from the Toronto Island to destinations such as Ottawa, Montreal, and New York."

Porter hired Counsell and her firm in 2002 to deal with the legal and regulatory issues faced by the company. Robert Deluce, Porter’s president and CEO, describes Counsell as “invaluable in terms of navigating the political minefield, particularly the extensive roadblocks we encountered during the four or five years that led up to our start of service in October 2006.”

Counsell proved herself especially invaluable in 2003, when David Miller, Toronto’s newly-elected mayor, cancelled the proposed bridge to the island airport. When the federal government backed the city, Counsell represented her client in settlement negotiations with the feds. The terms remain secret, but according to Counsell, the parties reached “a very fair settlement which compensated Porter for damages incurred.” The Globe and Mail pegged Porter’s take as high as $20 million.

Regardless of the dollar figure, Porter was clearly satisfied with its politically savvy young lawyer as she snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. So impressed, in fact, that Deluce offered Counsell a job — she will be joining Porter as the company’s General Counsel this June. A politically experienced lawyer would undoubtedly spin that as a victory.

Brian Iler

Airport expansion: bad for your lungs

Community Air — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 00:49:00 GMT

KEEP YOUR CHILD OFF DRUGS - ASTHMA DRUGS!

The Toronto Port Authority is holding an environmental assessment for their proposed “Pedestrian” Tunnel on Wednesday March 24, 2010 - from 6pm to 8pm at the Harbourfront Community Centre 627 Queen Quay West in the Medium Assembly Room.

They will focus their “Environmental Assessment” only on the new tunnel not on the doubling of Q-400 flights to 212 slots at the Island Airport.

They won’t talk about the 31,609,730 kgs. of CO2 or the 77,380 kgs. of NOx and thousands of kgs. of carcinogens. They won’t talk about the 600,000 taxis, cars and busses that will rush up and down Eireann Quay or the tens of thousands of taxis that will idle their engines beside the school and park.

They won’t talk about the noise impacts on you and your family’s health by over 30,000 Q-400 flights a year in your front yard.

Come to the meeting and demand a REAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY.

One that takes into considers the total environmental impact of all the Island Airport functions on your health

Community Air

Taking issue with curfew claims

Community Air — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 00:45:00 GMT

Skywatcher, what are you talking about with those EWR and BOS morning departures? The curfew at the Island Airport is 6:45am, and that's when the flights are scheduled to depart. So you're advertising that these flights departed on time?

You also seem to take issue with Newark Airport being labelled one of New York's three airports. Should we change Pearson's name to Mississauga International Airport?

You have some valid claims with the post curfew evening arrivals, don't taint those complaints with things that make no sense!

Dan

Curfews and the Tripartite Agreement

Community Air — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 00:40:00 GMT

As usual, Joe is most helpful.

The source of the curfew is different at Pearson – there is no tripartite agreement, or anything similar, that sets very strict limits on what can be done.

Here’s the precise wording:

"The Lessee acknowledges and agrees that all flights into and out of the Toronto City Centre Airport shall operate between the hours of 6:45 a.m. and 11 :00 p.m., with the exception of medical evacuations and other emergency uses."

The reason this was negotiated was to protect the surrounding neighbourhoods from noise during curfew hours. Allowing aircraft to taxi about, and line up for takeoff within curfew hours counters that purpose.

In my view, the curfew wording would be interpreted by a judge to reflect its intended purpose – to prohibit all ground operations save emergencies, during curfew hours.

Brian Iler

Another take on curfew breaches

Community Air — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 00:38:00 GMT

Hi Skywatcher,

Haven't heard from you for a while which is usually a good thing for many reasons.

I wanted to share my curfew experiences at Pearson with you to hopefully add perspective to what is going on at the Island Airport. I don't have a copy of the tripartite agreement with me but "most" curfew limitations at airports around the world are intended to stop aircraft from "flying" and allows them to move around the airport prior to and after the restricted hours.

At Pearson, the departures begin at 0630 (15 minutes earlier than at the Island).
Aircraft start taxiing at 0600 to line up (45 minutes before the Island) and on some days the line up can exceed 20 aircraft at 0630. (30+ last Saturday Mar 6th) (That is alot of idling and fuel burning for those downwind) I usually clear the first aircraft for takeoff at 0629+40 seconds so that at 0630+10 seconds they will be airborne to comply with curfew.

On the arrival side of the equation, you can't expect an aircraft to legally land at 10:59PM and just shut down on the runway and have everyone walk to the terminal from there - can you? I don't believe it takes 15 minutes for Porter to land and taxi to their terminal. AT Pearson, where the taxi distances can exceed 3 km from landing to terminal, it might take 10-12 minutes to park the aircraft. Furthermore, arrivals at Pearson used to have to circle around Toronto, making noise and burning fuel until they could land at 0600. Now, the airport authority has seen the environmental light (to the detriment of those who are asleep) and allows them to land prior to 0600. It is not uncommon to see arrivals at 0540AM - a full hour+ before planes can land at the Island.

For the record, I have agreed on MANY occasions that curfew breaches are inexcusable. I'm happy that the TPA has raised the fine for these events to help reduce them further. However, 1-3 minute violations are virtually impossible to eliminate and are part of the reality of any curfew controlled airport. To additionally complain about aircraft taxiing before and after the curfew has the same effect as making the curfew hours 06:50 AM to 10:55 PM for "FLYING" hours. Unless Mr. Iler can shed some light on this, I reiterate that in my OPINION, the curfew does not apply to taxiing aircraft. If the curfew WAS worded to prevent taxiing as well, then I will happily stand corrected.

Take Care!
Joe

Skywatcher and curfew breaches

Community Air — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 03:21:00 GMT

Porter seems to have learned a lesson about late night curfew breaches. A stunning victory for us!

WAIT ... do our eyes deceive us?

POE 393 from Chicago Arrival 11 pm Monday March 8th (from Flightstats.com)

We remind the TPA as Porter Airlines seems to have a short attention span: Hours of operation at the airport cease at 11 p.m. That means no airport operations after 11. No landing at 11 then taxing along runway until 11:15, no ferry's crashing into the seawalls and having to buy new ones .... these are all violations. Why is this not clear?

But let us look to the morning skies now while still keeping one eye on the night.

Let us remind the TPA ONCE AGAIN that morning operations do not begin until 6:45 am. THAT MEANS NO AIRCRAFT NOISE before 6:45 am. You can start brewing your coffee at 6:30 am, but c'mon... no engines before 6:45 am and no ferry's crashing ... oh we said that already. Every flight that departs before 6:50 (and we are being reasonable here) is in breach.

CURFEW BREACHES for 2010 (from flightstats)

POE 121 to NEWARK (pullease New York - sheesh, don't make us laugh)

Departed between 6:45 am and 6:50 am.

SPECIFICALLY: January 15, January 18, February 4, February 16, February 17, March 1, March 3,

all breaches

POE 939 to Boston

Departed between 6:45 and 6:50 am.

SPECIFICALLY, February 11, 18, 19, 24, March 1, 2, 3, 4

all breaches

Porter Airlines clearly cannot stay on schedule with either of these early morning daily flights. It is time to abandon them. First flights to Montreal and Ottawa leave after 7 am. So should these.

Skywatcher

Traffic safety woes: City TV reports

Community Air — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 03:13:00 GMT

As the Toronto Port Authority prepares to potentially double the number of flights at the island airport some local residents worry the already busy two-lane road that leads to the terminal won’t be able to safely accommodate any more traffic.

Read the whole article at:

http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/local/article/71744--island-airport-series-pt-3-some-waterfront-residents-concerned-about-increased-traffic-around-island-airport-ferry-dock

Clarifying the math

Community Air — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:11:00 GMT

Hi Mr. Kotyk.

RE: Wildly successful? or Wildly exaggerated?

1)RE: “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.”

On this point, I think I merged two thought processes and may have clouded the issue. I was trying to say that even at 18% load to Chicago and based on the airfares you sampled, Porter is within a few hundred dollars of covering their costs on that flight. The additional point was that Porter has many other routes that are well above 18% load which subsidize the Chicago operation. They are two distinct points but I think I allowed them to converge - sorry for any confusion.
Additionally, the 55% Break even load factor (BELF) for the Q400 provided by Bombarider does not recognize the specific cost structure, fares, yields and loads of Porter. Porter accountants can tell you their BELF if they wanted to but that information is held sacred by most airlines.

2) The 1.3 million customers for 2010 is a PROJECTION as I indicated. This number was cited by Mr. Deluce in the Toronto Star when the new terminal opened. http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/769782--island-airline-s-new-terminal-paves-way-for-expansion
Don't forget that once the slot issue is finalised, Jazz and Colgan will likely arrive "sometime" this year. Despite the two new carriers and after re-reading the article, I think Mr. Deluce was referring to ALL Porter customers including those on flights outside of Toronto to obtain his figures.

Hope this all helps.

Take Care!
Joe

More on Variations in Airfares

Community Air — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:07:00 GMT

Rob,

Right you are. I did make some assumptions that may appear unintentionally misleading.

I assumed that most people would look for a bargain rate and choose a date two weeks in advance which would give them the best possible weekday price. Also, I based my pricing on a one-way discounted “Freedom” ticket, the most expensive one for the date.

If you use the $917 or $ $968, next- day, non-discounted fares and the 30% load Bombardier break-even claim, Porter can make a profit with 3 passengers. The $917 X 3 passengers easily cover the $2,500 Bombardier break-even claim. If the industry were only that simple.

Perhaps, as you suggest, a median price would give a more accurate picture but perhaps not. As I have subsequently discovered, other factors are at play.

As indicated above, Bombardier’s Q400 breaks even with a 35%, or 25 passengers, load factor for a 300 nm flight at $100 a ticket according to their stats.

Several years ago a former WestJet employee stated that when Bombardier was flogging the Q400 to the company, WestJet calculated the load factor somewhere north of 55%, or 39 passengers, when indirect costs were accounted for.

Island Air, a Hawaiian airline, calculates a load factor of 55% for the Q400 to break even.

A U.K. study, Cost comparison of network, low-cost and charter airlines, citing 2005/06 figures, shows low-cost, short-haul U.K. carrier FlyBe with a load factor around 62% to break even. FlyBe uses 58 Q400s and 14 Embraer E-195s.

Given the divergent numbers on what it takes to break even, using a Q400, calculating Porter’s profitability becomes more complicated.

As Joe pointed out in an earlier post, it is the yield that matters. The site http://www.aa.com/i18n/amrcorp/corporateInformation/facts/measurements.jsp points out that yield is a relatively simple matter.

For the Toronto-Chicago flight at 441 miles (383 nautical miles), obviously, the more $968 seats sold than $239 seats (before applicable discounts), the greater the yield. For the 441-mile flight, the yield would vary between a high of $0.285 and a low of $0.075.

Porter’s 18%, or 13-passenger, load at those prices would generate either $12,584 or $3,107.

The question remains. Can 13 passengers generate a high enough yield for a profitable flight?

Consider the costs that go into running an airline http://www.airlines.org/economics/finance/CostIndexDefinitions.htm. Clearly, with free food and booze and computer use, Porter is not running a low-cost operation. Then there are the full-page ads in the dailies. Consider also the likelihood that not all 13 passengers are paying the full price.

When I consider these factors, I have difficulty seeing how Porter can be profitable running 13 passengers to Chicago. If anyone knows how it may be done, please explain it.

Bob Kotyk

Variations in airfares

Community Air — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 05:50:00 GMT

Bob,

I clicked on the same Porter website you identified on March 9th. The lowest rate $917 and the highest was$968. The fact is that airlines have differing rates depending on the amount of seats sold that they have on their aircraft. I believe the approach that you took is unintentionally misleading. If you were to run your calculations based upon these numbers, it would show that Porter is financially successful. If you wanted to provide a more accurate picture you would have chosen the median of the high and low fares to come up with a proxy rate to estimate Porter's profitability.

Rob

Wildly successful? or Wildly exaggerated?

Community Air — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 05:45:00 GMT

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

Another "First they..."

Community Air — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 05:42:00 GMT

"First they ignore you,
Then they laugh at you,
Then they fight you,
Then you win."
- Mahatma Gahdhi

Gabrielle David

Comments on "First they added more flights..."

Community Air — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:45:00 GMT

Wow, Outraged. Using Pastor Martin Niemöller's poem about the Holocaust as a comparison with an airport. Stay classy, dude.

Steeplejack

And, in addition to of these fine things, isn't it fortunate that all of their captains are as skilled and as rested as Sully Sullenberger. Otherwise those birds and those STOL runways could be a problem.

Andrew Malcolm

The Math: Air Fares and Load Figures

Community Air — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:25:00 GMT

Dan wrote, " Where do you get this information? The highest fare between Toronto and Chicago is over $900."

Dan,
On March 1, I checked the price for a Toronto - Chicago flight at href="http://www.flyporter.com/fly/Search.aspx?culture=en-CA" target="_blank">www.flyporter.com/fly/Search.aspx?culture=en-CA
by checking the One way button, clicking on Toronto for 'Leaving from' and Chicago for 'Going to' and entering the promo code that was valid on that day and that appeared on the same website.
The figure that the Porter website calculated was $191.20 after the discount - their figure, not mine.
This is the amount, $191.20, that the airline gets. The taxes, etc. do not go to Porter, so I left them out. They do not figure in Porter's revenue stream.
I used a one-way fare to simplify the math. A return fare calculation would double Porter's revenue but it would also double the costs supplied by Bombardier.
I hope this helps.

Bob Kotyk

First they added more flights...

Community Air — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 00:55:00 GMT

This airport is insidious.

First they wanted to add a few more commercial flights, and I did not speak out because I knew there was an airport there and I could hardly complain about a few more flights.

Then they wanted to double the flights because the economy would flounder if Bay Street couldn't get where it was going faster. And I said little because maybe that was true.

Then they said all world class cities have waterfront airports, so shut up.
Then they allowed curfew breaches.
Then they needed more ferries.
Then they said we need a tunnel
Then they said 212 flights "because we said so".
Then they said, knock down the historical site we need PARKING."
Then they said, we can defame you all we like -- nobody can stop us."

Soon they will say:
Extend the runways - we need to land more planes!
Let's kill all the birds in the sanctuary - they impede the flights
Bulldoze those yacht clubs boys! We need that land for the buses and the cars and bridges.
So what if the schools and parks are polluted? Go live somewhere else
So what if your kid has asthma? It isn't our kid.
So what if we pollute the nude beach? It offends our right-wing sensibilities anyways.
So what if we pollute the islands? Only hippies and immigrants go there.
So what if no one wants to come to the Toronto Waterfront? We have an airport.

Where is the demonstration CommunityAIR?

Outraged