Porter and the CSeries

Discuss topics relating to airlines.

Moderators: Sulako, North Shore, ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia

planeless
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 7:47 pm

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by planeless »

Bombardier says it only needs 4800' at MTOW which would work, operations might stop when the runway gets wet though.
---------- ADS -----------
  

wordstwice
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 2:48 pm
Location: pointy end

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by wordstwice »

What about the Steep ILS, will that be part of the C series plan or will they use an RNP type approach to avoid the stack.........lots of interesting developments and challenges to overcome.

Also, I am always excited to hear about expansions and changes to the aviation industry but with Porter declining passenger loads it makes one wonder how viable a $2 billion order is for them. If I was a Porter employee I would have alot of anticipated excitement but also very concerned about the financial path my employer is taking.

In the end I do wish them the best of luck!
---------- ADS -----------
  

Realitychex
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 460
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 2:37 pm

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by Realitychex »

whodareswins wrote:
gegu1 wrote:How is Porter financing this expansion, $2.3 billion not including the airport expansion, who is lending this much money and taking on all the risks. Porter doesn't have much equity and is barely breaking even, you have to have a strong balance sheet and revenue to be able to take on this much debt. Porter is privately owned, I have no problem if some billionaire behind Porter is risking his money but I don't want the government to lend Porter $2billion because when things don't work out and the company goes bankrupt, the taxpayers wouldn't be getting all of their money back.
How do you know Porter doesn't have a strong balance sheet? Our last glimpse into their financials was several years ago now. It's a private business so like the rest of us you're just speculating. You don't have to turn a huge profit to have a strong balance sheet. Maybe instead of posting a significant profit they chose to pay down debt? That's what I would do if I had any surplus at the end of the year. Like you, this is just pure speculation on my part.

gegu1 wrote:How come Porter isn't interested competing out of other airports like Pearson, they seen to be tough because they have no competition on Billy Bishop, Porter has a 90% market share there, if the expansion is approved and the jets could land there that would be a totally different situation, in such case Porter should sell some slots to other airlines like Westjet.
Huh?? Why on earth would Porter even consider competing out of YYZ or YUL? That would be financial suicide and completely against the entire reason the airline was founded in the first place! One minute you're questioning the company's viability, the next you're wondering why they aren't taking on unnecessary risks. And why on earth should they sell any slots to Westjet? (highly unlikely they'd want them in the first place). One of the reasons why Porter was given all of Continental's slots into YTZ was because they would explore new markets. If Air Canada was awarded any they would just be adding capacity on already saturated markets like YOW or YUL. Similarly if Westjet was given any slots.
That's what they said when WJ launched. There's no room for them in the marketplace.

Had WJ launched with the same fares as AC and CP, I'd tend to agree that the skeptics would have been correct. However, with costs 40% lower than the incumbents, the fares could be dramatically dropped thus stimulating demand. Let's be clear. Both AC and Canadian flew significantly higher load factors on competing routes after WJ was launched. The difference was that WJ made money doing so and the incumbents couldn't.

So the point is really "saturated at what price"? I'd agree there's very little demand for Porter's service to Boston when the walk up fare is $771. But how does demand change when those fares are chopped in half, as they were were to EWR when WJ launched 8x daily to LGA in June 2012?

The larger question is why Porter needs to be protected from free competition after being in business for 7 years. WJ has managed to be an extremely profitable business without any of the help that Porter's been given. As I recall, the only protection WJ was given was a 2 year head start at YHM, which was given to them after they began service there in the first place.

Porter is the only commercial airline in Canada that is pretty much free to fly wherever and wherever they want. It's virtually open season for them. They love to spout off the importance of competition in Canada, except when it comes to competition out of YTZ.

For those of you who consider Air Canada a monopolist, I present to you Porter. They have 85% of the commercial aircraft movements at YTZ, the downtown airport of Canada's largest metropolitan area. I mean, seriously. I get it if they wanted to operate out of Dryden or Flin Flon or Red Deer where they might need some protection, but out of Toronto?

Give me a break.....

8)
---------- ADS -----------
  

justwork
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 479
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:59 am

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by justwork »

Realitychex wrote:For those of you who consider Air Canada a monopolist, I present to you Porter. They have 85% of the commercial aircraft movements at YTZ, the downtown airport of Canada's largest metropolitan area. I mean, seriously. I get it if they wanted to operate out of Dryden or Flin Flon or Red Deer where they might need some protection, but out of Toronto?

Give me a break.....
Give me a break... if it wasn't for Porter Jazz would be flying 20K people out of there a year. As the slots open up airlines can bid on them. The last slots that opened were awarded to Porter because they wanted to diversify destinations while Air Canada chose to bid on already saturated routes. If a 737 can operate out of the island after the extension, and are physically capable with the 37, then why shouldn't they? My guess is that there pilots would see that airport once every month or so, and a 737 makes a big splash.
---------- ADS -----------
  

pointyertoes
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:42 am

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by pointyertoes »

Dear Realitychex/Bean,

I've sat back and listened to you blather on like a broken record for nearly 7 years now. You've made some cogent points over time that have given me pause. You've also repeated the same dire predictions time and time again and openly wished for Porter's demise. Aren't you getting tired? Or is someone paying you to attack Porter?
Your past ties to WJ are obvious (checkered past and all), and it makes sense that you would want to attack and discredit a competitor by any means necessary. But over the last 7 years, you've criticized Porter's choice of aircraft (then watched WJ buy a bunch of their own). You've waxed on about the folly of other airlines operating a mixed fleet (then watched WJ elect to operate a mixed fleet). You've questioned Porter's profitability without any backing information since 2008 (BTW, I've received healthy profit sharing checks for the last 2 years).
And repeatedly you have whined about Porter's "monopoly", even though slot allocation was and will continue to be a function of the decisions of an independent outside agency (not the TPA, which BTW is back in the black because of Porter). Porter was awarded the majority of the slots because of a commitment to both the infrastructure of the airport (which is massive) and a commitment to route/market expansion (which AC and Continental had no desire to pursue). By your own admission, WJ had no interest in operating from YTZ. So why all the whining? When the tunnel is complete next spring I'm sure WJ would be eligible for a fair share of slots (assuming they have the Q400s to allocate out east by that time...). Porter would love nothing more than another tenant to rent some pricey gate space, and sell fuel, wi-fi, cookies and coffee for a modest mark-up. I can tell you for certain that SR is regarded as a dream tenant. (It's quite satisfying seeing an increasing number of AC passengers connect to the Porter network from YUL)
As for the next step, just sit back and watch. I've witnessed RD pull off a lot of things since the beginning and he hasn't disappointed. Negotiating with city council is just a speed-bump, one of many that he's trundled over thanks to tenacity and good connections. Would you want to be the Councillor that single handedly scuttles $2.3 BILLION worth of investment and an additional 1000 or so jobs in Toronto in order to kowtow to a small percentage of voters? You think the Feds and the Quebec government and a couple of major corporations maybe have something to say about all this as well? (I wonder what kind of pull the tunnel developers have in the city?). Judging from the popularity of Porter in informal polls run by major news outlets over the last couple of days, I don't think this expansion plan will be a hard sell. Besides, Porter only wants to fit an aircraft in that works within NEF25 restrictions, kind of limits the fear-mongering once you realize that. And 1000' of runway within the existing airport boundary is a pebble in the harbour compared the the VAST piles of construction waste that is continually dumped into the lake at Leslie Spit. (I'm surprised Councillor Vaughn hasn't biked over there to check it out...)
So, in conclusion, play the game, not the player...keeping in mind the game can me modified by the savvy and that the arena may be bigger than what you perceive.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Fanblade
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1021
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by Fanblade »

planeless wrote:Bombardier says it only needs 4800' at MTOW which would work, operations might stop when the runway gets wet though.
Carefull.

Mulligan is referencing "Balanced" field TO distance. BBD is using the term TO distance. No mention of the word balanced. 55,000 kg is a lot of inertia to stop. Big engines help acceleration distance but stopping certification is all braking as it assumes engine out. Its not as simple as go bigger. Rubber can only take so much stopping force before skidding. In other words Braun doesn't help.

If 4800 is a balanced field then the wing must be phenomenal and able to lift 55,000 kg at very very low speeds. Like the CS100 must be able to pull 55,000kg off the ground in a 3000' roll. All aircraft out there at this time capable of that have high lift/high drag wings. Not capable of distance/speed or efficiency.

I'm skeptical 4800 is a balanced field number.

Anyone have proof this is a balanced number?
---------- ADS -----------
  

pointyertoes
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:42 am

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by pointyertoes »

Fanblade wrote:
planeless wrote:Bombardier says it only needs 4800' at MTOW which would work, operations might stop when the runway gets wet though.

I'm skeptical 4800 is a balanced field number.

Anyone have proof this is a balanced number?
No proof till after certification. However, do you think BBD would market this major selling point if it wasn't plausible? And do you think that Porter would dare make this order without having a reasonable assurance of some of the the most basic performance criteria?
---------- ADS -----------
  

Fanblade
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1021
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by Fanblade »

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardi ... #section_4

This says 4800' TO roll. Yeah I know its Wikipedia but the refenence section looks well researched.

So 6200- 6500' feet roughly for a balanced field length at all up weight? That sounds more reasonable for 55,000kg. Still very good. That being an ISA number they will need at least 7000 feet to make this a year round feasible operation at MTOW.

So what I would like to know. BS aside? What is the actual end game here? A submerged scuba water park? Wreck diving in lake O.

Clever. They would never approve that.

Anyone have better info? I just can't see a 4800' balanced field.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by Fanblade on Thu Apr 11, 2013 5:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Fanblade
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1021
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by Fanblade »

pointyertoes wrote:However, do you think BBD would market this major selling point if it wasn't plausible?
Show me were BBD makes the claim that the 4800' is anything other than TO roll. I can't find it. I have found 4950 as well. Again nothing about balanced. The term being used is roll.

Again less than 7000' balanced at all up weight and the range the CS100 has is fantastic. 4800 balanced with that range and weight? I'm sceptical. More so since I can't find BBD making the claim.

Does anyone have a reference where BBD claims a 4800' balanced TO distance at all up weight?
---------- ADS -----------
  

Fanblade
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1021
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by Fanblade »

pointyertoe wrote:And do you think that Porter would dare make this order without having a reasonable assurance of some of the the most basic performance criteria?
Well I think there is a lot at stake for both companies. Both BBD and Porter have much to gain over the publisity alone.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
fingersmac
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 606
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 4:17 pm

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by fingersmac »

Fanblade wrote:This says 4800' TO roll. Yeah I know its Wikipedia but the refenence section looks well researched.
How about just comparing the numbers Bombardier published in their fact sheet for the C Series with other Bombardier aircraft fact sheets? All three fact sheets use the same format.

Max Take Off Field Length

CS100 - 4,800' @ 129,000lbs

http://media.bombardiercms.com/cseries/ ... 7a1759.pdf

CRJ700 Next Gen - 5,271' @ 72,750lbs

http://www2.bombardier.com/en/3_0/3_6/p ... tsheet.pdf

CRJ1000 Next Gen - 6,549' @ 91,000lbs

http://crj1000nextgen.bombardier.com/pd ... tsheet.pdf
---------- ADS -----------
  

Fanblade
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1021
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by Fanblade »

fingersmac wrote:
Fanblade wrote:This says 4800' TO roll. Yeah I know its Wikipedia but the refenence section looks well researched.
How about just comparing the numbers Bombardier published in their fact sheet for the C Series with other Bombardier aircraft fact sheets? All three fact sheets use the same format.

Max Take Off Field Length

CS100 - 4,800' @ 129,000lbs

http://media.bombardiercms.com/cseries/ ... 7a1759.pdf

CRJ700 Next Gen - 5,271' @ 72,750lbs

http://www2.bombardier.com/en/3_0/3_6/p ... tsheet.pdf

CRJ1000 Next Gen - 6,549' @ 91,000lbs

http://crj1000nextgen.bombardier.com/pd ... tsheet.pdf
Those numbers convinced me even more the numbers are only TO roll. Flown a 700 at MTOW? Like playing chicken with the weeds. Skinny wing and all. To be 400' shorter with 50,000 lbs more? Great achievement. Still needs a 6000 plus runway.

You have to remember it is impossible to provide balanced numbers without terrrain.

For some reason Porter is asking for a runway extention equal to the TO roll of a CL100 but not long enough to operate one??????????
---------- ADS -----------
  

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7908
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Making aviation exhausting, everywhere

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by photofly »

Read this carefully, it's from Porter's PR site. There are already plans to extend the runway. porter just wants them even longer.
Airports around the world are adopting new enhanced aviation standards, led by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). As part of this, Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport may extend its main runway to accommodate a runway end safety area. Porter would like to increase that extension by an additional 10% at each end of the runway, continuing to stay within the airport's current boundaries.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Fanblade
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1021
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by Fanblade »

photofly wrote:Read this carefully, it's from Porter's PR site. There are already plans to extend the runway. porter just wants them even longer.
Airports around the world are adopting new enhanced aviation standards, led by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). As part of this, Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport may extend its main runway to accommodate a runway end safety area. Porter would like to increase that extension by an additional 10% at each end of the runway, continuing to stay within the airport's current boundaries.
Read this carefully? You're funny.

Are you in the industry? Runway safe area is NOT part of the runaway length. It is for over run safety.

There are a few technologies out there. EMAS the most common. Not sure what YTZ has in mind.

But read this carefully. It doesn't count as runway length. Doesn't count in a balanced field calculation. Therefore irrelevant.

This is what happens when you use a runway safe area.

http://crankyflier.com/2010/01/22/34-pe ... love-emas/

Face it. Bare minimum Porter needs another 2000' to operate SHORT haul out of YTZ. That's 2000' of real pavement. Trans Con they need a minimum of 3000' more. Runway safe area on top to be ICAO compliant.
---------- ADS -----------
  

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7908
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Making aviation exhausting, everywhere

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by photofly »

Face it...
You're right. BobD is on the line, btw, wants your advice. He's asking why none of his Ops people have told him his runways won't be long enough. I told him "f*cked if I know, but why not wait and see what the actual plans look like?" He said, no, can't wait for that, get me the guy from that AvCanada who already knows it isn't going to work. I need more people like him on my team.

(He also called the technical team from Bombardier who went over the performance figures with him "lying scumbags who'd sell their grandmothers to Saddam Hussein for a bag of jelly beans" but I don't think it would be polite of me to mention that.)
---------- ADS -----------
  

Gino Under
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:06 pm

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by Gino Under »

Fanblade

I think your suppositions are reasonable. However, the wingspan and performance projections for this C Series are such that the 4100 foot runway should be sufficient. Reality still has to be demonstrated. I get that. Even the landing distances and I appreciate that too. Remember, this isn't a re-engined CRJ. it's a clean sheet design. Unlike the re-engined pretenders from B-wing and Blunderbus. The numbers still need to be validated.
The C will lift a full load off YTZ and fly them to L.A. quite comfortably off 4100 feet of runway. That's NOT a short haul flight.
Show me another 109 pax aeroplane with similar weights and performance numbers.

Gino :drinkers:
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
ptc
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 6:30 am
Location: Ottawa

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by ptc »

here are the stats for the "urban operations" CS100 so if they have 5000 it can be done

Max takeoff weight 53,060 kg (117,000 lb)
Max landing weight 49,895 kg (110,000 lb)
Maximum cargo payload 3,629 kg (8,000 lb)
Maximum payload (total) 13,676 kg (30,150 lb)
Max range 2,778 km (1,500 nmi)
Take off run at MTOW 1,219 m (3,999 ft)
Landing field length at MLW 1,341 m (4,400 ft)
---------- ADS -----------
  

mulligan
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 11:36 am

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by mulligan »

"The C will lift a full load off YTZ and fly them to L.A. quite comfortably off 4100 feet of runway."

Then it is a quantum leap in performance in a field where gains are usully incremental. The 319 needs 7000' to do that with alternates usually being no more than 100 miles away (not a problem in California). It does that fairly comfortably. The 320 is not really a comparable but things can get very tight in one of those.
I have been doing this so long that I might just have trouble thinking such dramatic improvements are possible. My first YYZ-LAX trips were in a 737-200 with an aux tank. Now THAT was tight:-)
---------- ADS -----------
  

Mig29
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1213
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 7:47 pm

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by Mig29 »

double post
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by Mig29 on Fri Apr 12, 2013 8:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

Mig29
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1213
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 7:47 pm

Re: Porter and the CSeries

Post by Mig29 »

.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by Mig29 on Fri Apr 12, 2013 8:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Return to “General Airline Industry Comments”